Hubbles vs. Dark Energy: Debunking the Mystery of Galaxy Expansion"

AI Thread Summary
Hubble's observations indicated that galaxies further away are moving away faster, suggesting a linear expansion of the universe. However, dark energy introduces the concept of accelerated expansion, meaning that the rate of expansion is increasing over time. This indicates that younger, closer galaxies could be moving away faster than older, more distant ones. Hubble's Constant, which describes this expansion rate, is not truly constant as it changes over time, a nuance Hubble's original data could not capture. Ultimately, while Hubble's findings were foundational, they do not fully account for the complexities introduced by dark energy.
discord73
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
So Hubbles observations showed that the further away a galaxy is the faster it is moving meaning that older galaxies are moving away faster from us than younger, closer ones. But dark energy says that the rate of expansion is increasing,meaning the closer, younger galaxies would be traveling faster than the farther, older ones. So. Which one is correct?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The dark energy picture is more correct than hubble's simple linear expansion picture. Hubble simply didn't have the quality of data to detect the accelerating expansion, and indeed it's not until the late 90's that we finally did. I wouldn't really say Hubble was wrong though -- the situation is rather analogous to Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. Newton wasn't really wrong, the domain of applicability of his theory was just smaller than Einstein's.
 
So does that mean as we look farther away from our galaxy the expansion speeds up to a certain point of time/distance the expansion starts slowing down as we look further back? Meaning Hubble was right with his data, he could see the universe expansion increasing as he looked further out, he just couldn't see far enough to see where the universe started slowing down?
 
So Hubbles observations showed that the further away a galaxy is the faster it is moving meaning that older galaxies are moving away faster from us than younger, closer ones.
No.
1. At any given (cosmological) time, the so-called recession speed of a galaxy is exactly proportional to its distance. The proportionality factor is called H.
2. H is changing with time, getting less and less. "Accelerated expansion" means that H decrases slower than it would if all galaxies were freely floating.
3. Combine this with light travel time to get a recession speed - distance at emission chart. These are more complicated. Look athttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ich said:
2. H is changing with time, getting less and less. "Accelerated expansion" means that H decreases slower than it would if all galaxies were freely floating.

Okay so Hubble's Constant isn't constant then? How did Hubble miss that? is the change in H as the farther you go away so slight that he was unable to look far enough away to see a change in H?
 
Okay so Hubble's Constant isn't constant then? How did Hubble miss that? is the change in H as the farther you go away so slight that he was unable to look far enough away to see a change in H?
You know, I gave you the link for a reason. Have a look at Hubble's data and decide for yourself.
Hint:1 Mpc~3Mly. Age of the universe ~13700 My.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top