Question on redshift/expanding universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter gamblej
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
gamblej
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am not a physicist so I was wondering if it is possible to explain the following question to a layman.

My information on this is subject to the whims of pop-sci journalists so if the answer will go over my head, that's OK. I'm still curious.

The further a galaxy is from us, the more distant back in time its light was sent. So those near the visible horizon of our universe that are truly hauling *** were hauling *** away from us 10 billion years ago. What about today? Couldn't a distant galaxy's relative velocity be a function of time rather than distance? How do cosmologists decouple these factors to arrive at the correct result (that our universe's expansion is accelerating)?

Thanks for any insight you can provide! :)
 
Space news on Phys.org
gamblej said:
I am not a physicist so I was wondering if it is possible to explain the following question to a layman.

My information on this is subject to the whims of pop-sci journalists so if the answer will go over my head, that's OK. I'm still curious.

The further a galaxy is from us, the more distant back in time its light was sent. So those near the visible horizon of our universe that are truly hauling *** were hauling *** away from us 10 billion years ago. What about today? Couldn't a distant galaxy's relative velocity be a function of time rather than distance? How do cosmologists decouple these factors to arrive at the correct result (that our universe's expansion is accelerating)?

Thanks for any insight you can provide! :)
Yes, the relative velocity is both a function of time and distance. The way we model this in cosmology is we consider the universe to be homogeneous (the same everywhere) and isotropic (the same in every direction). If the universe is the same everywhere, then we can define a global expansion rate that depends upon time: H(t). If we take any two objects in the universe separated by some distance d, their relative velocity will be, on average, H(t) * d.

Over time what has happened is that early on, H(t) decreased very very rapidly, so that objects were originally moving away from one another at very high speed, but slowed down. More recently, H(t) has been approaching a constant value. This means that objects are now moving away from one another faster and faster with time (if H(t) approaches a constant, then as objects get further away, H(t) * d becomes larger, which means they move faster).
 
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