Understanding the Expanding Universe: A Simple Analogy for Kids

  • Thread starter Chaos' lil bro Order
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Analogy
In summary, the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and approximately 92 billion light-years in diameter. This is due to the fact that the fringes of the universe are expanding at a speed faster than the speed of light. This means that objects, such as quasars, that are 13.4 billion light years away, may not be visible to us in the future due to the accelerated expansion of space. This can be compared to ants on a latex sheet being pulled by people, representing the expansion of space. Additionally, two objects separating at constant or increasing rates can also result in light signals never reaching each other.
  • #1
Chaos' lil bro Order
683
2
Its confusing to think that the Universe is 78 billion light years across considering that we think its only 13.7 billion light years old. So I tried to construct an analogy that I could tell to kids. Can you tell me if this analogy is ok?

I'm in the back of a pickup truck facing backwards and you are 5 miles behind me standing still. My truck is moving away from you with every second that passes by, so after a while we are 6 miles, then 7 miles, 8 miles, 20 miles apart, etc. Think of my pickup truck as the edge of the Universe and you standing still, as the Earth. I have a gun aimed at you 20 miles away. As I fire the gun, the bullet takes a while to travel the 20 mile distance between us before it hits you. But when you feel the bullet hit you, my truck is now much further away than 20 miles because the whole time the bullet was traveling towards you, my truck was traveling away from you. Think of the bullet as light.

So this means that even though here on Earth we see light that is 13.7 billion years old (really more like 13.4 billion years old, but we don't need to get into it), this light has been traveling towards us for 13.7 billion years, while AT THE SAME TIME, the Universe's fringes have been expanding away from us for 13.7 billion years. Well then, we would expect the Universe to have a radius of 13.7 billion + 13.7 billion years = 27.4 billion years. Multiply this by two to get the Universe's diameter of 54.8 billion years. 'BUT WAIT!' you say. I thought the Universe's diameter was 78 billion years across? Well, the Universe WOULD be 54.8 billion years in diameter, EXCEPT that its expansion rate is accelerating. AKA. The truck is accelerating faster and faster away from you.


Astronomers have seen light from Quasars that are 13.4 billion light years away. The crazy thing is that the fringes of the Universe are expanding at a speed faster than the speed of light (its important to know that the fabric of the Universe itself can expand at speeds greater than light speed). THIS MEANS that every year Quasars we could see last year, suddenly blip out into darkness, WE CANNOT SEE THEM ANYMORE because they are receding from us faster than the speed of the light that they send at us.

Just imagine if the truck sped away from you faster than the bullet I shot towards you, the bullet would never hit you!
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Your analogy seams appropiate to me. It seams useful to visualize how objects can be farther away than the distance traveled by light that was emited by them. But...

Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Its confusing to think that the Universe is 78 billion light years across considering that we think its only 13.7 billion light years old.
The universe is actually about 13.7 billion years old and about 92 billion light-years in diameter.

Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Astronomers have seen light from Quasars that are 13.4 billion light years away. The crazy thing is that the fringes of the Universe are expanding at a speed faster than the speed of light (its important to know that the fabric of the Universe itself can expand at speeds greater than light speed). THIS MEANS that every year Quasars we could see last year, suddenly blip out into darkness, WE CANNOT SEE THEM ANYMORE because they are receding from us faster than the speed of the light that they send at us.
This is incorrect. The fact that something emiting light now cannot be seen in future is related to the existence of a cosmological event horizon. Event horizons exist only in cosmological models with accelerated expansion of space. Superluminal expansion exists in every cosmological model with a Hubble law.
 
  • #3
Here is another analogy.

Have as a large circlular sheet of latex with numerous ants crawling over it all with the same constant speed. Now have 20 people, evenly spread around, pull the latex sheet with an accelerating speed.

Now think of the latex sheet as the expanding space and the ants as the speed of light. :smile:
 
  • #4
hellfire

Ok, so its 92 billion across, gotcha. Have a good link for this?

'This is incorrect. The fact that something emiting light now cannot be seen in future is related to the existence of a cosmological event horizon. Event horizons exist only in cosmological models with accelerated expansion of space. Superluminal expansion exists in every cosmological model with a Hubble law.'

I'm not sure you are talking about what I was talking about. I'm saying that light from a quasar 13.4 billion ly away, that was emitted 13.4 billion years ago, will reach our eyes today. But tommorrow, any light that this quasar happened to emit 13.4 billion years ago plus a day, will never reach us because this quasar is receding from us at superluminal speeds.
 
  • #5
Note that it is not necessary for two objects to separate at superluminal speeds for a light signals to never reach the other objects.

If both accelerate away from each other at a constant or increasing rate and have a certain distance between them they will never see the other object's light signals.
 
  • #6
MeJennifer said:
Note that it is not necessary for two objects to separate at superluminal speeds for a light signals to never reach the other objects.

If both accelerate away from each other at a constant or increasing rate and have a certain distance between them they will never see the other object's light signals.


Yes, I know. Can you speak to my last question to hellfire Jen?
 
  • #7
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Ok, so its 92 billion across, gotcha. Have a good link for this?
Ned Wright's cosmological calculator, or mine (see my signature).

Chaos' lil bro Order said:
I'm not sure you are talking about what I was talking about. I'm saying that light from a quasar 13.4 billion ly away, that was emitted 13.4 billion years ago, will reach our eyes today. But tommorrow, any light that this quasar happened to emit 13.4 billion years ago plus a day, will never reach us because this quasar is receding from us at superluminal speeds.
You are right that it will not. But this is not only due to the fact that it recedes with the speed of light, because in cosmological models with decelerated or constant expansion the light of objects receding at speeds greater than c would indeed reach us. In our universe there is a cosmological event horizon that is more or less located at the Hubble sphere (where objects recede at the speed of light) and this is the reason for the emitted light to not reach us.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Once the light of an object 'touches' us, it never let's go. Remote objects merely redshift [and time dilate] into oblivion as the universe expands . . . at least until they run out of fuel.
 
  • #9
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Its confusing to think that the Universe is 78 billion light years across considering that we think its only 13.7 billion light years old. So I tried to construct an analogy that I could tell to kids. Can you tell me if this analogy is ok?

I'm in the back of a pickup truck facing backwards and you are 5 miles behind me standing still. My truck is moving away from you with every second that passes by, so after a while we are 6 miles, then 7 miles, 8 miles, 20 miles apart, etc. Think of my pickup truck as the edge of the Universe and you standing still, as the Earth. I have a gun aimed at you 20 miles away. As I fire the gun, the bullet takes a while to travel the 20 mile distance between us before it hits you. But when you feel the bullet hit you, my truck is now much further away than 20 miles because the whole time the bullet was traveling towards you, my truck was traveling away from you. Think of the bullet as light.

So this means that even though here on Earth we see light that is 13.7 billion years old (really more like 13.4 billion years old, but we don't need to get into it), this light has been traveling towards us for 13.7 billion years, while AT THE SAME TIME, the Universe's fringes have been expanding away from us for 13.7 billion years. Well then, we would expect the Universe to have a radius of 13.7 billion + 13.7 billion years = 27.4 billion years.

No. It wasn't 13.7 billion light years away 13.7 billion years ago. In fact, the galaxy whose light takes 13.7 billion light years to get here was actually closer to us than 13.7 billion light years at the beginning:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/redshift.html

See "angular diameter distance" and how it relates to the past distance of galaxies (i.e. at the time when the light was emitted).
 
  • #10
kmarinas86 said:
No. It wasn't 13.7 billion light years away 13.7 billion years ago. In fact, the galaxy whose light takes 13.7 billion light years to get here was actually closer to us than 13.7 billion light years at the beginning:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/redshift.html

See "angular diameter distance" and how it relates to the past distance of galaxies (i.e. at the time when the light was emitted).

I urge you to reconsider what you have just said.
 
  • #11
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
I urge you to reconsider what you have just said.

Space expands between then an now (according to the big bang). Galaxies that used to be a few billion light years away are now much further (if they still exist). A galaxy that used to be 2 billion light years away can be much further than 5 billion away. See the chart below where is says [itex]D_A[/itex]. That's the distance the light was away at the time it was emitted.

The distance between the galaxies now > The distance light travels > The original distance between the galaxies.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/redshift.html
 

Attachments

  • redshift.gif
    redshift.gif
    6 KB · Views: 445
  • expansion-anzwers.gif
    expansion-anzwers.gif
    13.6 KB · Views: 460
Last edited:

1. Is it appropriate to use analogies in scientific research?

While analogies can be useful for explaining complex concepts in simpler terms, they should be used with caution in scientific research. Analogies may oversimplify or misrepresent the actual phenomenon being studied, so it is important to carefully evaluate their relevance and accuracy before using them in research.

2. How do I know if an analogy is a fair one?

A fair analogy is one that accurately reflects the relationship between two concepts or phenomena. It should not ignore any important aspects or introduce any misleading information. To determine if an analogy is fair, it is important to thoroughly analyze the characteristics and properties of both the analogy and the original concept.

3. Can analogies be used to prove a scientific theory?

No, analogies alone cannot prove a scientific theory. While they can help to illustrate and explain a theory, they do not provide empirical evidence or data to support it. Scientific theories are based on rigorous testing and analysis, not just on analogies or comparisons.

4. Are there any limitations to using analogies in scientific research?

Yes, there are several limitations to using analogies in scientific research. First, they may oversimplify complex concepts and ignore important details. Second, they may be culturally or contextually dependent, meaning that they may not be easily understood or relevant to all audiences. Lastly, analogies are subjective and can be interpreted differently by different people, making them less reliable as a form of evidence.

5. How can I effectively use analogies in scientific writing?

When using analogies in scientific writing, it is important to clearly define and explain the analogy to ensure that it is understood by the reader. It should also be relevant and accurate, and not detract from the main point of the research. Additionally, analogies should be used sparingly and with caution, as they may not always accurately represent the phenomenon being studied.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
54
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top