# How fast is Earth traveling due to the Hubble constant?

• B
• Nick Levinson
In summary: The known universe has an estimated size (counted in megaparsecs) and an estimated age (counted in billions of years), so it makes sense to ask what's the size-to-age relationship for things in the universe. But that's not what the Hubble constant measures.
Nick Levinson
I'm trying to figure out or find how fast Earth is moving due to the Hubble constant. I'm runnng into two answers and have difficulty understanding either one.

--- One answer is a number of kilometers per second per megaparsec. But that's a distance per time unit per distance unit. I don't understand why the number is not reduced to one distance unit per time unit, much as we say for aircraft (a number of miles per hour or a number of kilometers per hour). My problem seems to center on the "per megaparsec" part. When I look it up, I see that a megaparsec is a number of light-years, which is the distance traveled by electromagnetism (e.g., light) in a year, and it relies on electromagnetism because, as far as we know, it's the fastest thing traveling. So I don't understand why the distance units are not being combined.

--- The other answer is that the constant measures the expansion of the universe, which I'm fine with, but then it's assumed that we decree an arbitrary center and then find that everything else moves away from that center, so that the center is arbitrarily assumed to not be moving. That's fine when we want to be arbitrary, but Earth is not at the center of the Milky Way and the Milky Way is not at the center of either the universe of known and observable matter and energy or, as far as we know, at the center of the infinite universe (the universe as understood by children). So, even just from the Hubble constant, there should be a speed number for Earth's travel from the center of a universe.

I understand that, without counting the Hubble constant's effect but counting Earth's travel toward the Great Attractor (I just learned about that and don't know if that's still in a scientific consensus), Earth is traveling at about two and a half million miles an hour. I expect to get an upper speed by adding the Hubble constant's speed at Earth's location to the non-Hubble combined speed, much as we'd add the speed at which someone climbs a rope located in an elevator to the upward speed of the elevator itself, even though sometimes one speed would be subtracted from the other, such as when Earth is moving around the sun in a direction of travel opposite of that of the universe's expansion.

Nick Levinson said:
how fast is Earth traveling due to the Hubble constant?
It isn't. As you seem to understand, but aren't following through on, there is no such thing as absolute motion, just motion relative to other things. You can get the motion of the Earth relative to the CMB, but there is no such thing as the motion of the Earth due to the expansion of the universe.

PeroK
So I don't understand why the distance units are not being combined.

Mainly tradition, I think; km/s and megaparsecs are familiar units for cosmological quantities (and a megaparsec is just a large number of kilometres); so collapsing the units of H into an inverse time makes some things less intuitive. (Note that H represents a rate not a velocity.)

The other answer is that the constant measures the expansion of the universe, which I'm fine with, but then it's assumed that we decree an arbitrary center and then find that everything else moves away from that center, so that the center is arbitrarily assumed to not be moving.

No. There is no centre of the Universe (as far as we know). But it's a fairly simple consequence of uniform expansion that any observer will see the universe expanding around them. It's sometimes compared to an inflating balloon, where the 2D surface of the balloon represents the 3D expanding universe. Every point on the balloon sees all its neighbouring points moving away from it as the balloon inflates. (This does assume that if the universe has an edge, we're nowhere near it.)

(The Great Attractor is something inferred from the motions of galaxies; it's an interesting cosmological phenomenon, but it does not represent the centre of the universe, either.)

Since the universe does not appear to have a centre, it doesn't make sense to ask how the Earth is moving with respect to it. And in any case the expansion measured by the Hubble parameter doesn't operate within the solar system or even within the Galaxy--just on an intergalactic scale. I'm not sure where you get the Earth's speed is about two and a half million miles an hour. That might be its speed around the centre of the Milky Way (I haven't checked)--but that's a legitimate speed, measured against a relatively well-defined centre.

PeroK
OK.

I thought the known universe had a measured distance across it (counted in billions of light-years) and therefore that its center is implied and locatable and therefore that Earth's location could be determined relative to the universe's center's location, all at least approximately, and I thought the Earth's locus had been calculated as not at the center of the universe, but if all that is not the case, then so be it.

The two and a half million is a sum of speeds including motion around the sun and motion of the Milky Way. I'd have to re-research it to list the components; those may be the only ones.

Nick Levinson said:
OK.

I thought the known universe had a measured distance across it (counted in billions of light-years) and therefore that its center is implied and locatable and therefore that Earth's location could be determined relative to the universe's center's location, all at least approximately, and I thought the Earth's locus had been calculated as not at the center of the universe, but if all that is not the case, then so be it.

The two and a half million is a sum of speeds including motion around the sun and motion of the Milky Way. I'd have to re-research it to list the components; those may be the only ones.
The Earth IS at the center of the observable Universe.
Nobody expects that to be everything which exists.

Last edited:
Nick Levinson said:
--- One answer is a number of kilometers per second per megaparsec. But that's a distance per time unit per distance unit. I don't understand why the number is not reduced to one distance unit per time unit, much as we say for aircraft (a number of miles per hour or a number of kilometers per hour).

Here's my attempt to explain this without butchering the whole thing:

The problem is that expansion isn't a velocity. It's an acceleration that depends on distance. In SI units, regular acceleration has units of ##\frac{m}{s^2} = \frac{m}{(s)(s)} = \frac{m}{s}*\frac{1}{s}##. The first fraction in that last part represents velocity and the 2nd represents time. So if you are accelerating at a rate of : ##\frac{10m}{s^2}## that means your velocity is increasing at a rate of 10 meters/second every second. If the rate of change of your acceleration is zero, then you have a constant acceleration and if you accelerate for 10 seconds your velocity will increase by 100 m/s.

But the expansion of space isn't an acceleration of time. Well, not directly at least. The rate of acceleration has units of velocity per distance, or ##\frac{km}{s}*\frac{1}{Mpc}##. The problem here is that we can't directly cancel these units because the 2nd term is actually changing over time since things are moving away from us. So breaking it down further it should be: ##\frac{km}{s}*\frac{1}{\frac{ΔMpc}{Δs}}##, where Δ (delta) is a symbol that represents a change in a quantity. Calculus tells me that 2nd term should probably be ##\frac{1}{\frac{dMpc}{ds}}##, where 'd' represents an infinitesimal change in a quantity. You could rearrange the 2nd term to get a change in time over a change in distance and maybe cancel out units, but that's a little confusing as it takes away the benefit of being able to immediately tell that you're still working with a change over time.

Unfortunately, I don't know if you can cancel units in this case and I don't know if my analysis is 100% correct. But the general idea is that the rate of expansion is an acceleration over distance (which itself can depend on time since you'll be moving), not purely an acceleration over time. So if you just sit there inertially (with respect to the Hubble flow) and let the expansion of space carry you away from another object, your recession velocity will gradually increase over time. But if you're also moving relative to the Hubble flow in addition to moving away from the other object, your recession velocity will increase even faster with respect to time than before.

Hopefully that's mostly correct. As always, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Nick Levinson said:
OK.

I thought the known universe had a measured distance across it (counted in billions of light-years) and therefore that its center is implied and locatable and therefore that Earth's location could be determined relative to the universe's center's location, all at least approximately, and I thought the Earth's locus had been calculated as not at the center of the universe, but if all that is not the case, then so be it.

The two and a half million is a sum of speeds including motion around the sun and motion of the Milky Way. I'd have to re-research it to list the components; those may be the only ones.
The center of the observable universe is your left eyeball when you close your right eye. As rootone said, it would be rather silly to think that's the center of the universe.

Unfortunately, I don't know if you can cancel units in this case and I don't know if my analysis is 100% correct.

As I recall, if you do cancel the units you get the inverse of the "Hubble time", which is of the same order as the age of the universe. I believe that in some of the simpler cosmological models, it is the age of the universe, but, like you I'm open to correction on that.

Drakkith said:
But the general idea is that the rate of expansion is an acceleration over distance (which itself can depend on time since you'll be moving), not purely an acceleration over time.
While I mostly agree with what you were getting at, I'm not sure it's a good idea to call it 'acceleration over distance', since acceleration is by definition the change of velocity over time. Furthermore, 'acceleration over time' kinda implies jerk. A more correct description, IMO, would be the change of velocity over distance.

Drakkith said:
So if you just sit there inertially (with respect to the Hubble flow) and let the expansion of space carry you away from another object, your recession velocity will gradually increase over time. But if you're also moving relative to the Hubble flow in addition to moving away from the other object, your recession velocity will increase even faster with respect to time than before.
This bit is not correct in general. The recession velocity of some generic galaxy increases over time only in universes undergoing accelerated expansion, which while true for our universe at the present epoch, wasn't true in the past, and does not follow just from the statement that there is expansion. In particular, universes without dark energy have recession velocities always decelerating, or - in case of completely empty (i.e. 'Milne') universes - constant in time.

John Park said:
As I recall, if you do cancel the units you get the inverse of the "Hubble time", which is of the same order as the age of the universe. I believe that in some of the simpler cosmological models, it is the age of the universe, but, like you I'm open to correction on that.
Yes. The Hubble time is the age of the universe in Milne universes, where recession velocities are constant over time. It is simple to see why that is so:
Recession velocities are given by the Hubble law: ##V=dH_0## Let's take an arbitrarily chosen distance d from the observer, and ask how long does it take for a galaxy at d to cover that distance. From the definition of velocity we have ##V=d/t##, so combining the two equations we get ##dH_0=d/t => t=d/(dH_0)##
The above gives meaning to eliminating the two distances in the dimensions of the Hubble constant (a galaxy twice as far will recede at twice the velocity, so the time to cover both distances is the same and independent of the particulars of the distances). And the meaning of the inverse of ##H_0## is the time for any receding galaxy to get to where it is now.

Nick Levinson said:
One answer is a number of kilometers per second per megaparsec. But that's a distance per time unit per distance unit. I don't understand why the number is not reduced to one distance unit per time unit, much as we say for aircraft (a number of miles per hour or a number of kilometers per hour).
It tells you how the recession velocity scales with distance. It's 67.9 km/s every 1 Mpc. A galaxy at 1 Mpc will recede with 67.9 km/s, at 10 Mpc with 679 km/s, at 1 Gpc with 67 900 km/s. You can't reduce it to just km/s (like for aircraft), since the expansion does not have just one speed. It has a rate - much like percentage rate of growth of money on your savings account. Just as a bank could tell you that according to current rates, you'll be getting 6 dollars a year for every 100 dollars you deposit (so the dimensions are $/t/$ - just as with the Hubble constant which has d/t/d), or equivalently tell you that you'll be getting 6% increase/year (and if you eliminate the distances from the Hubble constant, you get a percentage rate as well: roughly 1/144th% per million years).
* note for clarity: in a bank, the percentage rate tends to remain constant, so you can get exponential growth of savings. The Hubble constant is not in general constant in time (rather, it falls down).

Drakkith
in a bank, the percentage rate tends to remain constant, so you can get exponential growth of savings. The Hubble constant is not in general constant in time (rather, it falls down).

In some of the books I've seen it's been called the "Hubble parameter" for that reason. I was trying to remember to do that myself, but I think I just called it H.

On Earth being the center of the observable universe and no one doubting that other universes exist beyond the reach of our technology-independent observational powers (post #5, above, by rootone): It's reasonable to expect more universes, but, ignoring them and focusing on this one, unless the distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is equidistant for all directions, Earth is not at the center. If Earth is, then the moon is not. And if Earth is, it's not at most times of the year. While Earth being at the center (presumably throughout the year) was accepted for centuries, I think that is no longer considered true. I also think we're not near the edge of the observable universe; we may be closer to the center than to an edge. But I'm not an expert on this.

Nick Levinson said:
On Earth being the center of the observable universe and no one doubting that other universes exist beyond the reach of our technology-independent observational powers (post #5, above, by rootone):
Quite the contrary, unless you subscribe to the highly speculative many-worlds interpretation, there is only one universe. In any event, even if there ARE other universes, they are not casually connected to ours.

... focusing on this one, unless the distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is equidistant for all directions, Earth is not at the center. If Earth is, then the moon is not. And if Earth is, it's not at most times of the year. While Earth being at the center (presumably throughout the year) was accepted for centuries, I think that is no longer considered true. I also think we're not near the edge of the observable universe; we may be closer to the center than to an edge. But I'm not an expert on this.
The center of the observable universe is your left eye, when you close your right eye. Mine is too. If you were on the moon, the center of the observable universe would STILL be your left eye.

Comeback City and davenn
Being in the centre of the observable universe is like being in the centre of the circle of the horizon on Earth. If you move around, the horizon moves with you, and you're always at the centre.

John Park
Nick Levinson said:
It's reasonable to expect more universes, but, ignoring them and focusing on this one, unless the distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is equidistant for all directions, Earth is not at the center. If Earth is, then the moon is not. And if Earth is, it's not at most times of the year. While Earth being at the center (presumably throughout the year) was accepted for centuries, I think that is no longer considered true. I also think we're not near the edge of the observable universe; we may be closer to the center than to an edge. But I'm not an expert on this.

That's not what 'observable universe' means. The observable universe is simply the portion of the universe visible to any observer at a give time. You and I, looking up into the night sky, are observing slightly different observable universes. Not that we can notice the difference since we can't see into the infrared and microwave range. If we were a few billion light years apart, then we would have noticeably different observable universes. Every observer is, by definition, at the center of their own observable universe.

There is nothing special about the observable universe. There's no physical line or change delineating the observable universe from something else. We just talk about it as if there's only one that's centered on the Earth because it's a convenient shorthand instead of having to talk about a specific reference frame every time we say "observable universe".

I do not subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation, since it seems to support there being infinitely much matter and energy, but that some number of other universes, perhaps one or perhaps some other finite number, can exist seems very plausible. I understand that the Big Bang theory applies only to our observable universe and does not rule out another universe of matter and energy pre-existing and existing with the Big Bang.

I thought what we can observe today with our present technology is the observed universe. If that's the observable universe, then I need a term for the universe that includes what can be observed only if there were no technological limit on observation. Maybe that's the known universe, thus including our best theory about what's in it. Relative to that known universe, the one we're in, then, if I'm always at the center of the universe and you're always at the center of the universe and we're not at the same place, then we're being approximate. If "circle of the horizon" means that I can stand on Earth and turn 360 degrees and always see the horizon and thus the horizon is a circle, okay, but that's not an adequate analogy to what I'm calling for the moment the known universe. It is that known but not entirely observed universe that I understand we are not at the center of.

John Park
Nick Levinson said:
I understand that the Big Bang theory applies only to our observable universe and does not rule out another universe of matter and energy pre-existing and existing with the Big Bang.

The big bang applies to the entirety of the universe, not just our observable portion. It doesn't rule out the possibility that our universe in another state prior to the big bang, but "existing with the big bang" makes no sense.

Nick Levinson said:
I thought what we can observe today with our present technology is the observed universe. If that's the observable universe, then I need a term for the universe that includes what can be observed only if there were no technological limit on observation.

The maximum diameter of our observable universe has a hard limit governed by the speed of light. Light or other particles traveling towards us from portions of the universe outside our observable portion simply haven't had the time to reach us. This diameter is then reduced by what we can actually see with our eyes and instruments. However, when we speak of the observable universe, we are almost always talking about the portion limited by the speed of light. So the term you're looking for is simply "the observable universe".

Nick Levinson said:
If "circle of the horizon" means that I can stand on Earth and turn 360 degrees and always see the horizon and thus the horizon is a circle, okay, but that's not an adequate analogy to what I'm calling for the moment the known universe. It is that known but not entirely observed universe that I understand we are not at the center of.

We are indeed at the center of the "known" universe, because the known universe is the same thing as the observable universe. The two terms mean the same thing in the context that you've been using "known universe" in this thread.

If "circle of the horizon" means that I can stand on Earth and turn 360 degrees and always see the horizon and thus the horizon is a circle, okay, but that's not an adequate analogy to what I'm calling for the moment the known universe. It is that known but not entirely observed universe that I understand we are not at the center of.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...e-to-the-hubble-constant.907287/#post-5717659

I assume you're referring to post #13:
If you move around, the horizon moves with you, and you're always at the centre.

Bandersnatch said "move around", not "turn around".

You can go from the North Pole to the Equator or anywhere else on the Earth, and you'll still be at the centre of the observable "universe" that extends as far as the horizon around you. And that is the analogy to our position in the real universe.

Last edited:
I'll hold up (for now) using terminology that's causing a problem herein (which maybe I caused) and go to definitions, in order of greater size:

A) The universe that we can observe with today's technology from Earth or near it. (What we could observe only with century-ago technology was smaller and presumably what we'll be able to observe a century from now will be bigger, although perhaps not.)

B) The universe that we could observe if we could put our technology far away and await results. If we could put it, say, a billion light-years away (waiting two billion light years from launch to result), we might find this universe to be appreciably bigger, but if we found a lack of matter and energy at the new maximum distance then we might doubt the universe of matter and energy to be spherical. This univere might be larger than the 93 billion light-years in diameter now said to be the case.

C) The universe that we could observe if our technology were unlimited. There'd still be the limits of physics. That could be bigger and, in the past, always has been bigger than our past technology let us find.

D) The universe that extends forever in all four dimensions of space and time and, beyond the matter and energy we can perceive, could be mostly empty. This universe, which extends forever, is what children learn about. By definition, it is bigger than either of the other two.

In this thread, I'll call them A, B, C, and D, respectively.

It seems that A (or B) and C are being conflated in this thread into one. That would make what technology measures the same as what physics tells us, and that would mean that technology introduces no limits that physics has not already introduced. But while technology has a concept of tolerance or degree of precision, I think physics without technology does not. Once technology stops introducing a limit that is not required by pure physics, tolerance or degree of precision becomes unnecessary.

I read that a beam of light tends to disintegrate over distance, as individual photons tend to veer off (I don't recall if an individual photon could disintegrate but I think not), so that the maximum perceivable distance is that beyond which a beam of light would have disintegrated before getting to us. I don't know if that's also true for lasers, but I think that it is, although maybe at a greater distance.

By "pre-existing and existing with the Big Bang" I meant that matter and energy could have existed before and during the Big Bang while nowhere near the location in space where the Big Bang occurred. Since expanding balloons are a popular analogy, I'll use that here: Assume a balloon (with vacuums inside and out) was expanding and in the center there occurred a big bang creating a new vacuous balloon that also was expanding. The two balloons might never come close to each other. If they were big enough and an observer was on either balloon's surface and was using available technology, the observer might be unable to perceive the other balloon, and perhaps could do no more than hypothesize that the other balloon could possibly exist. I don't think the Big Bang meant that any prior matter and energy far from the spatial location of the Big Bang had to have ceased existing or that the Big Bang could not have occurred until it did cease existing.

On the distinction between moving around and turning around, in the context of universe C the likelihood that we're precisely at the center is statistically almost infinitesmal, even before we adduce evidence of our location. Perceiving matter and energy in all spatial directions, so we therefore perceive that we're at the center of what we have observed, is not enough to justify saying we're at the exact center of the universe that could be perceived if we could put sensors far enough out to make a difference in our perceptions of the size and shape of the universe. In that context, my left eye being at the center and my right eye being at the center cannot both be true at the same time, regardless of whether the other eye is closed. I don't think it's true even for universe A, although the difference would likely be too small for present technology to measure.

The universe that we could observe if our technology were unlimited. There'd still be the limits of physics. That could be bigger and, in the past, always has been bigger than our past technology let us find.

It is routinely pointed out in semi-popular accounts of cosmology that looking out into space is looking back in time. The microwave background was formed a few hundred thousand years after the big bang (when it was of much shorter wavelengths), and we observe that in fair detail now, observe galaxies that are (I think) only a few million years younger than that. It's not clear whether we could observe much beyond the formation of the microwave background--the universe was very opaque until then--but if the big bang is real, there isn't very much further (in time or distance) to go. There might be a lot more matter to examine, but the actual boundary is defined by the time since the big bang.

the location in space where the Big Bang occurred

It is also routinely pointed out in semi-popular accounts of cosmology that there is no such location. The big bang happened everywhere.

Assume a balloon (with vacuums inside and out) was expanding and in the center there occurred a big bang creating a new vacuous balloon that also was expanding.

This analogy would represent another universe outside our space-time continuum--a kind of many-worlds model. It's not clear that even in principle there could ever be communication between two such universes or any way for one to deduce the existence of the other. Unless some observable effects of other universes can be hypothesised, speculations about them are philosophy rather than physics.

Take a look at this picture (I hope the font is readable):

The distances shown above are dictated by the finite age of the universe and its expansion. The 'long enough' that Adam and Barbara need to wait to observe events that happened in space currently ~63 Gly distant is the infinite future. It takes longer and longer to receive light from every bit further.

A) is marked with 45 Gly. It is the current distance to the portion of space that once emitted the cosmic microwave background radiation. Since prior to that light could not propagate freely in the universe, it is the farthest that is observable today using detectors of electromagnetic radiation.
C) is the 'extra bit' marked with the double arrows. It is from how far in principle we could receive any signal if we weren't limited by technology. If you could see to the outer edge of that extra bit, you'd be looking at the earliest universe.
The two combined mark 'present particle horizon', or maximum extent of theoretically observable universe at current time.

As for B), it makes no sense to do that if you want to see further out. If you put an instrument far away and let it gather light there, then it'll have to beam the results to you. But since the light it observed and the information it sends back both travel at c, you could instead just wait for the light that the instrument observes to get to you on its own. B) is then confined to the future observable universe.

D) is marked as 'more universe'. Usually it's referred to as just 'the universe' as opposed to 'observable universe', but context matters. In no model used to describe the universe is it partially empty. It's always assumed to be more of the same everywhere. Similarly, no model of the universe has a centre (or an edge). The only context in which the centre functions, is as the centre of the observable universe, which is specific to each observer.

Nick Levinson said:
I read that a beam of light tends to disintegrate over distance
This doesn't have enough of an effect to matter. Most photons can travel since they were released 13.7 billion years ago without encountering anything on its way. Most of the absorption happens in our galaxy, where density of gasses is high.
The physical limitations of observations are set by the age of the universe, its expansion, and the fact that for the first 380 thousand years light could not travel freely.

Nick Levinson said:
Since expanding balloons are a popular analogy, I'll use that here: Assume a balloon (with vacuums inside and out) was expanding and in the center there occurred a big bang creating a new vacuous balloon that also was expanding.
You are misusing the analogy. It only works if you assume that only the surface of the balloon exists. There's no inside or outside. The whole universe is confined to the 'flatland' of the expanding surface. The observable universes are marked by circles drawn on the surface, centred on observers. That surface as a whole (the universe) has no centre, and no edge. The expansion happens throughout the balloon universe.

Last edited:
chasrob and Drakkith
Nick Levinson said:
Since expanding balloons are a popular analogy, I'll use that here:
You completely misunderstand, and are misusing, the balloon analogy. Bandersnatch has given you the essence of it but I recommend the link in my signature for a more complete understanding of what it is and what it isn't.

@John Park for post #20:

No disagreement that looking at anything is looking at history. We see the sun as it was 8 min 20 sec ago. I see my laptop as it was some tiny fraction of a second ago. Also, I gather we have no evidence of anything preceding the Big Bang (although the possibility has not been precluded).

I had read that the Big Bang was from something very small. I had not come across it being everywhere at once. (I may not read the same sources.) That would seem to eliminate anything pre-existing still existing at the time of the Big Bang and surviving that Big Bang, although I've heard that the Big Bang does not eliminate that possibility. What I've just looked up gets me this: "[T]hat little point of matter that was the Big Bang was not a little point of stuff inside an empty universe. It was, in fact, the entire observable universe." (<Http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...lace-where-the-big-bang-happened-intermediate>, as accessed 3-17-17.) That's limited to the observable universe as it existed back then, and that's a lot less than the infinite universe (the kind children imagine), and I think less than the observable universe of today. But the same page then says there was no space to expand into, thus there was no infinite-but-mostly-empty space. But also it says, "the reaches of the universe were not quite as distant those many billions of years ago." Which leaves me wondering that since the size of the universe of matter and energy used to be smaller what that universe of matter and energy expanded into, i.e., what it gradually occupied as it expanded. If it had no contact with pre-existing matter and energy, then it seems to have expanded into empty space.

Whether there are two universes of matter and energy unable to observe each other is within the science of physics, and physics tells us it could be possible. Particulars without evidence pro or con would be outside of science. I have not speculated about those particulars for any universe other than our own. I don't accept the many-worlds hypothesis, either.

@Bandersnatch for post #21:

The font is indeed readable. The chart acknowledges that there is some kind of a universe beyond the observable universe. My model B assumed technology would be perfect, whereas the chart speaks only of better technology. I'm unclear why one would have to wait much longer than 63 gly to see 63 gly out unless the observer is not allowed to travel. It'd be interesting to know the chart's provenance.

With my model B, with the sensor we place a gly away and then collect back, with a round trip longer than 2 gly (not 2 gly as I erroneously said), I was assuming it would record information and then bring it back and that information would not have arrived at Earth unaided. Then we'd learn something about a farther reach of the universe that otherwise we wouldn't have been able to learn.

Thank you for the other analyses.

@phinds for post #22 and the article:

The article helps. I prefer thinking of the ant as having an effect even if it is below what we can measure (maybe it isn't but some quantities are) because it's better to keep the negligible amounts in the back of our minds in case scales get large enough that we'd better resuscitate those issues in time to refine the larger calculations, which is when they become more complex. The recipe for chicken soup is probably different if to be made in a repurposed brand-new ocean-going oil tanker than in a one-quart home pot. I once asked a former sailor whether, if I stood on a pier and leaned on the Queen Mary (once the world's largest commercial passenger ship) while tied to the pier it would eventually move and he said, "Yes -- and you don't want to be there when it gets back."

The lack of a center is sounding more like the center being arbitrary, useful if we're talking only about an arbitrary part of the universe and our ability to observe it is limited by physics to what's local to us. Being in this part of the universe is arbitrary anyway (e.g., life formed here but might have formed elsewhere instead).

Movement at three times the speed of light mainly because of space's expansion is something I want to think about more, and it's another topic for another time.

---

I'm still left with the likelihood that there physically exists a type of universe part of which has matter and/or energy beyond what not only technology but pure physics let us observe, viz., more than 46 or so gly away, for which there is the ability to travel past matter and energy until the matter and energy is all behind the traveler, functionally an edge if not precisely demarcatable, much as the Earth has an atmosphere that is not precisely measured but eventually during travel away air molecules are scarcer until perhaps locally absent. (I've come across the interpretation that says we can't leave the universe once we get to a boundary but that doesn't rule out someone else being on the other side of that boundary even if they can't cross it to meet us.) That universe would likely be larger than what physics let's us perceive, thus likely more than 93 gly across (I'd have to add to my four-type typology of universes hereinabove), and this universe (larger than what physics allows observing from one point) is not certain to be spherical. That kind of universe would necessarily have a geometric center and thus Earth would have an address relative to that center and therefore a speed related to the Hubble effect (a rate of speed change implies a speed that could be changed).

Tentative conclusion: However, it appears we can't know even approximately what that particular speed is, because the same physics that stops us from observing beyond about 46 gly away stops us from knowing the Hubble-factor speed of Earth itself.

Nick Levinson said:
The article helps. I prefer thinking of the ant as having an effect even if it is below what we can measure (maybe it isn't but some quantities are) because it's better to keep the negligible amounts in the back of our minds in case scales get large enough that we'd better resuscitate those issues in time to refine the larger calculations, which is when they become more complex. The recipe for chicken soup is probably different if to be made in a repurposed brand-new ocean-going oil tanker than in a one-quart home pot. I once asked a former sailor whether, if I stood on a pier and leaned on the Queen Mary (once the world's largest commercial passenger ship) while tied to the pier it would eventually move and he said, "Yes -- and you don't want to be there when it gets back."
You may of course believe anything you like, but it's better if it's backed up by facts. The Queen Mary is not tethered enough so that you could not move it a small bit. The ant could do that as well, but he can't move the house at all.

Yes, but something can be a fact even though it can't, with available technology, be measured with more precision than 0 or 1, or can but hasn't been. The house presents a problem for measuring movement, because it can absorb the ant's pressure and then move back, resulting in no net change or even in a negative motion, because of the complexity of the house's construction or, if the ant pushed on a wooden plank, the complexity of the wood's microstructure. I have seen a figure, albeit years ago from a source of unknown reliability, for the amount of deflection of a foot-long steel rod resulting from a fly landing on it, but if a mosquito landed on the top side of your arm you might move your arm upward to slap it. On average and all else equal, the ant would cause a movement. If we can't measure it Monday when the ant pushes but invent a measuring system Tuesday and the now-tired ant pushes again on Wednesday and this time we measure it on the far side of the house, the claim that the ant had no effect on Monday evaporates, even though we'll never know what the Monday amount was.

Nick Levinson said:
Also, I gather we have no evidence of anything preceding the Big Bang (although the possibility has not been precluded).

That's correct. There are hypotheses, but no unambiguous evidence for anything preceding the big bang.

Nick Levinson said:
What I've just looked up gets me this: "[T]hat little point of matter that was the Big Bang was not a little point of stuff inside an empty universe. It was, in fact, the entire observable universe." (<Http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...lace-where-the-big-bang-happened-intermediate>, as accessed 3-17-17.) That's limited to the observable universe as it existed back then, and that's a lot less than the infinite universe (the kind children imagine), and I think less than the observable universe of today. But the same page then says there was no space to expand into, thus there was no infinite-but-mostly-empty space. But also it says, "the reaches of the universe were not quite as distant those many billions of years ago." Which leaves me wondering that since the size of the universe of matter and energy used to be smaller what that universe of matter and energy expanded into, i.e., what it gradually occupied as it expanded. If it had no contact with pre-existing matter and energy, then it seems to have expanded into empty space.

The "little point of matter" contained what would become our current observable universe. But right next to it was another "little point of matter" that because another observable universe just beyond our own. An observer halfway between those two little points would be able to see portions of both (which would be their observable universe).

The best explanation we have is that there were an infinite number of these "little points of matter" in the very early universe.

Nick Levinson said:
Whether there are two universes of matter and energy unable to observe each other is within the science of physics, and physics tells us it could be possible. Particulars without evidence pro or con would be outside of science. I have not speculated about those particulars for any universe other than our own.

It is certainly within the realm of science to make predictions that can't currently be verified, and the existence of matter and energy outside of our own observable universe is exactly that. I would consider the existence of the CMB is a strong supporter of this idea, as every second that goes by we have another portion of the universe that emitted the CMB radiation come into view. This "sufrace of last scattering" gets further away all the time, so the fact that we can continue to see it after decades of first discovering it supports the idea that there is more out there beyond our own current observable universe.

Nick Levinson said:
I don't accept the many-worlds hypothesis, either.

Just so you know, MWI has nothing to do with cosmology. That's purely an interpretation of quantum theory.

Nick Levinson said:
@Bandersnatch for post #21:

The font is indeed readable. The chart acknowledges that there is some kind of a universe beyond the observable universe. My model B assumed technology would be perfect, whereas the chart speaks only of better technology. I'm unclear why one would have to wait much longer than 63 gly to see 63 gly out unless the observer is not allowed to travel.

The observer wouldn't have to wait longer than 63 billion years to see that far out because they can already see out to 45 billion light years. They'd only have to wait around 20 billion years for that light to come into view.

Nick Levinson said:
With my model B, with the sensor we place a gly away and then collect back, with a round trip longer than 2 gly (not 2 gly as I erroneously said), I was assuming it would record information and then bring it back and that information would not have arrived at Earth unaided. Then we'd learn something about a farther reach of the universe that otherwise we wouldn't have been able to learn.

By the time your spacecraft and sensor reached Earth, that information will have already arrived. The best you could do is relay it from your position 2 gly out with light-speed or near-light-speed communications, in which it would reach Earth at approximately the same time as the original information, giving you no benefit.

Nick Levinson said:
I'm still left with the likelihood that there physically exists a type of universe part of which has matter and/or energy beyond what not only technology but pure physics let us observe, viz., more than 46 or so gly away, for which there is the ability to travel past matter and energy until the matter and energy is all behind the traveler, functionally an edge if not precisely demarcatable, much as the Earth has an atmosphere that is not precisely measured but eventually during travel away air molecules are scarcer until perhaps locally absent. (I've come across the interpretation that says we can't leave the universe once we get to a boundary but that doesn't rule out someone else being on the other side of that boundary even if they can't cross it to meet us.) That universe would likely be larger than what physics let's us perceive, thus likely more than 93 gly across (I'd have to add to my four-type typology of universes hereinabove), and this universe (larger than what physics allows observing from one point) is not certain to be spherical. That kind of universe would necessarily have a geometric center and thus Earth would have an address relative to that center and therefore a speed related to the Hubble effect (a rate of speed change implies a speed that could be changed).

The problem is that current evidence just doesn't support it. I don't mean that current evidence rules it out, I simply mean that everything we can observe leads us to believe that there is no empty space outside of our observable universe. Edit: By that I mean that we expect to see space filled with stars, galaxies, gas, and dark matter, not completely empty space.

To use your own analogy, it would be like having an atmosphere that doesn't drop off in density as altitude increases, at least to the sensitivity of our instruments. So there's no space and planes can fly as high as they'd like within the constraints of time and fuel. We'd be limited to seeing some limited portion of this 'non-vacuum space' just like we're currently limited to seeing a limited portion of the universe. In such a hypothetical situation, the scientists of this world would likely conclude that the entire universe is filled with a moderate density gas. Their conclusion would be a reasonable one and even though there may be a possibility that the density falls off very, very slowly, eventually leading to a vacuum that is so far out that they can't see it, no one could fault them for coming to their conclusions.

Last edited:
Nick Levinson said:
The problem is that current evidence just doesn't support it. I don't mean that current evidence rules it out, I simply mean that everything we can observe leads us to believe that there is no empty space outside of our observable universe.
In fact the evidence suggests it's more likely that there is just more of the same stuff beyond the horizon, and it could be infinite in extent, that possibility is not discounted.

rootone said:
In fact the evidence suggests it's more likely that there is just more of the same stuff beyond the horizon, and it could be infinite in extent, that possibility is not discounted.

Whoa, how'd you quote my post but attribute it to Nick Levinson?

rootone said:
Whoa, how'd you quote my post but attribute it to Nick Levinson?

That's easy

Drakkith
Ooops sorry, must have messed up the cut paste job, but basically was just extending your point more for Nicks information than for yours.

Drakkith
Nick Levinson said:
My model B assumed technology would be perfect, whereas the chart speaks only of better technology.
The 'better technology' is meant as 'perfect technology'. You can't see farther than the bits specified in principle. Since the farther you look, the earlier universe you see, looking at the edge of the 'extra bit' means that you're looking at the beginning of time, when everything would have to be on top of everything else (aka 'the cosmological singularity').
Nick Levinson said:
I'm unclear why one would have to wait much longer than 63 gly to see 63 gly out unless the observer is not allowed to travel.
This has to do with the accelerated expansion of the universe. Accelerated expansion results in the appearance of a cosmic event horizon, from beyond which no signal can ever reach the observer. I don't want to get into details here, so let's just say, provisionally and somewhat incorrectly, that it's because as light advances 1ly per year, the space expands sufficiently to carry it back at least that much. The closer the emitter is to the event horizon, the longer it takes the light it emits to reach the observer, with this time approaching infinity in the limit of the horizon.
The distances indicated on the graph are 'proper distances at t=now'. This means that these are distances you'd measure today, if you could stop the expansion and go out there with a really long ruler to measure how far that is. These are the distances to the emitters of the light that you receive today.
This means a few things:
1. when the light you see now was emitted, the farthest emitters were closer (about a thousand times closer) than the 45 Gly indicated on the graph. Their light had to travel through the expanding space, which takes longer than through non-expanding space.
2. by the time their light reached us, the emitters have been carried away by the expansion to the 45 Gly mark. This is the sense in which we can see that part of the universe.
3. the 63 Gly mark is where TODAY are the emitters of the light which, due to the expanding space, will only reach us in the infinite future. That is, this is the light that was emitted in the past at the edge of the event horizon and is still on its way.
4. by the time the light from objects currently at 63 Gly reaches us - in the infinite future - those objects will have receded to infinity.

One can't move somewhere else, or send a probe to make photos, in order to see beyond the event horizon, since that would entail traveling faster than light. If, on the other hand, one wants to send a probe to somewhere within one's event horizon, that probe won't be able to see further than what one would get just by waiting.

Hmm, I feel I haven't made it clear enough. Cosmological horizons might warrant a separate discussion, though.

Nick Levinson said:
It'd be interesting to know the chart's provenance.
I made it using outputs from this calculator:
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7-2017-02-08/LightCone_Ho7.html
And by eyeballing the lightcone graphs in this paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf

The 63 Gly is probably the least accurate, since I only had the graph to go by. Give it +/- 2 Gly error bars.

These represent the Lambda-CDM concordance model of cosmology, with latest data from PLANCK satellite (in case of the calculator; the paper is a bit older).
Drakkith said:
The observer wouldn't have to wait longer than 63 billion years to see that far out because they can already see out to 45 billion light years. They'd only have to wait around 20 billion years for that light to come into view.
No, Drakkith. It takes infinite time to receive light emitted IN THE PAST by emitters TODAY at the 63 Gly mark. See the discussion above, or go to the Davis&Lineweaver paper linked and look at the conformal time vs comoving distance graph.
Nick Levinson said:
That universe would likely be larger than what physics let's us perceive, thus likely more than 93 gly across (I'd have to add to my four-type typology of universes hereinabove), and this universe (larger than what physics allows observing from one point) is not certain to be spherical. That kind of universe would necessarily have a geometric center and thus Earth would have an address relative to that center and therefore a speed related to the Hubble effect (a rate of speed change implies a speed that could be changed).
No, even a non-spherical universe needs no centre. It could be toroidal, or be an infinite plane (in the 2D analogy). But a finite universe with a physical edge and a geometric centre is not entertained, since there's no physical basis for such space, whereas general relativity can accommodate infinite spaces. To put it in other words, since it looks like gravity works like we think it does, and we see expansion happening, edges are not permitted.
When there is no edge, and no centre, then it doesn't make sense to ask about recessional speed of Earth - it's stationary w/r to the Hubble flow (barring local, peculiar motions like orbits etc.).

Bandersnatch said:
No, Drakkith. It takes infinite time to receive light emitted IN THE PAST by emitters TODAY at the 63 Gly mark. See the discussion above, or go to the Davis&Lineweaver paper linked and look at the conformal time vs comoving distance graph.

Ugh, stupid expanding space. Why can't it behave!

Drakkith said:
Ugh, stupid expanding space. Why can't it behave!
I have often asked the same question of my belly. I'm not sure about spacetime but I think with me it's the jelly donuts.

Drakkith
@Drakkith: If there was an infinite number of "little points of matter", I wonder if they wholly or partly coincided in a space-time location and thus occupied only a finite (perhaps small in total) space at a given time or if they occupied infinite space. The latter seems likelier given the premise but also problematic and probably impossible. If they all inflated as Big Bangs and we have infinite matter and energy, expansion would be impossible, because there'd be no place to go. The shorter version of the problem is in saying the supply of matter and energy already exists infinitely far in all directions, not simply that there's no evidence that there is not an infinite supply of matter and energy infinitely far in all directions. A result of the infinite number of "little points of matter" with noncoincident nonoverlapping loci or of the infinite supply of matter and energy is that in that case the universe should not be expanding but getting denser. If it is hardly dense at all, then it must be young. (One could consider what would happen in its old age; for example, absolute density could prevent motion, forcing the temperature to be uniformly, not just on average, absolute zero, and we folks would be getting mighty uncomfortable before then.) But we say the universe of matter and energy is expanding, so an infinity of matter and energy seems not to be in existence now. So an infinite number of Big Bangs seems not to have happened (you didn't say they did) and, if there was an infinite number of "little points of matter", they must not all have produced Big Bangs, simultaneously or otherwise; and the supply of matter and energy must be finite and extend only finitely far.

@Bandersnatch:

I count a center as being part of a torus (<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html>, as accessed 3-18-17) and by extension of any 2D or 3D geometric shape even if the center would therefore be outside of the universe so shaped, and no entire universe, with any nonzero thickness of matter, can be only two-dimensional. If the exact boundary (finiteness of extent requiring some kind of boundary even if we have another term for that) of the universe can only be approximated because, say, molecules move around, then the location of the center can only be approximate, but it would still exist.

Matter extending infinitely far seems not to be the case, as in my comment to Drakkith just above.

Nick Levinson said:
@Drakkith If they all inflated as Big Bangs and we have infinite matter and energy, expansion would be impossible, because there'd be no place to go.
Not even close to being correct. Something that is Infinite can expand without limit. You should read up on this before going further, basing your arguments on a false premise. For starters Google "Hilbert Hotel". Also you might do a forum search since your point of view has been debunked here several hundred times or more.

• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
992
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
1K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
2K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
267
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
8
Views
2K
• Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
578
Replies
3
Views
992
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
• Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K