Red Shift: Questions About Light & Big Bang

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gway22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Red shift Shift
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of redshift in relation to the Big Bang theory and the expansion of the universe. Participants clarify that while light from distant galaxies takes time to reach us, the current observed redshift indicates that these galaxies are indeed moving away from us. The acceleration of the universe's expansion, driven by dark energy, suggests that a reversal of this trend is unlikely in the near future. The analogy of the Sun's light reaching Earth reinforces the idea that observable phenomena must guide scientific theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of redshift and its implications in cosmology
  • Familiarity with the Big Bang theory and cosmic expansion
  • Knowledge of dark energy and its role in the universe's expansion
  • Basic principles of light propagation and astronomical observations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of redshift in cosmology and its measurement techniques
  • Study the properties and theories surrounding dark energy
  • Explore the current models of cosmic expansion and their predictions
  • Investigate the observational evidence supporting the Big Bang theory
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, students of cosmology, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of the universe's expansion and the implications of redshift.

gway22
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
This might be obvious but i was listening to someone talk about how he believes the big bang is cyclical and the universe is constantly expanding and contracting. now i don't believe this but one of the points he raised was (and i know it doesn't support his argument) we don't know if galaxies are still moving away from us since the light we see from an object a million light years away takes a million years to reach us, we may see it red shifted now but it could be coming towards us but the light wouldn't be blue shifted until a million years after it started to move towards us. Is this correct?
 
Space news on Phys.org
gway22 said:
This might be obvious but i was listening to someone talk about how he believes the big bang is cyclical and the universe is constantly expanding and contracting. now i don't believe this but one of the points he raised was (and i know it doesn't support his argument) we don't know if galaxies are still moving away from us since the light we see from an object a million light years away takes a million years to reach us, we may see it red shifted now but it could be coming towards us but the light wouldn't be blue shifted until a million years after it started to move towards us. Is this correct?
As the expansion of the universe in recent years has been speeding up instead of slowing down, it really isn't reasonable to suggest that this trend has suddenly reversed itself in the (comparatively) small amount of time it has taken the light to reach us from the relatively nearby universe.

Thinking our universe has already started to collapse would really be akin to thinking that the Sun might not be there any longer because the light from the Sun takes around seven minutes to get to us: the Sun might have suddenly rocketed off, away from the rest of the Solar System, leaving the planets to fly off in its wake. There's basically no way this can happen.

Might the acceleration of the expansion reverse itself at some time in the far future, however? Well, it's conceivable. But it doesn't seem likely. it would require that the dark energy starts, for some unknown reason, behaving very differently from what it's done in the past. It might be possible to come up with a speculative model of dark energy where this happens, but it certainly isn't easy.
 
The Sun could have it's gravity magically turn off and we wouldn't know about it yet. That doesn't mean it is likely. The universe could very well slow down and reverse in the future, but currently it simply doesn't look that way, it looks like the opposite. When making theories and models using science we MUST rely on things that are observable, not things that we would like to happen.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K