Redshifts & Hubble: How Do We Know Galaxies are Moving?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter La_Mettrie
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of redshifts and the movement of galaxies, particularly how we can infer that galaxies are still moving away from each other despite observing light that is millions of years old. Participants explore the implications of redshift measurements and the historical context of Hubble's findings.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how we can know galaxies are still moving away if the light we observe is from the past, suggesting a potential misunderstanding of the implications of redshift.
  • Another participant counters that there is no reason to believe some galaxies have reversed course, citing extensive data from various distances that supports ongoing redshift.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of data from nearer galaxies, which they argue provides more current information that aligns with the theory of continued redshift.
  • A participant raises the point that we cannot ascertain the state of the universe beyond the observable limits, suggesting that our understanding is limited to what we can detect.
  • Historical context is provided regarding Hubble's conclusions, with one participant noting that Hubble's findings were based on chance and that his measurements were limited to the local cluster, which may not follow the same expansion laws.
  • Another participant mentions that modern observations continue to support Hubble's conclusions, referencing the use of standard candles for independent confirmation.
  • One participant draws an analogy to a car moving away, suggesting that while we cannot prove galaxies are still expanding, ongoing observations show consistent patterns of redshift, which supports the idea of continued expansion.
  • Discussion of the FLRW cosmological model is introduced, with some participants noting its assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy in space, and its implications for understanding cosmic expansion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of redshift and the reliability of historical data. There is no consensus on the certainty of galaxies continuing to move away, with some arguing for ongoing expansion based on current models and others highlighting limitations in our understanding.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on observable data and the historical context of Hubble's measurements, which may not fully capture the dynamics of the universe. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the interpretation of redshift and its implications for cosmic expansion.

La_Mettrie
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm a total amateur, but I'm really curious about this. When we look at a galaxy that's millions of light years away, we're seeing it as it was millions of years ago, correct? So when Hubble and others measured redshifts in the light coming from galaxies, that must also be/have been light that took ages to get here. So how do we know galaxies are still all racing away from each other if the data we're getting is old news, so to speak?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

You're kinda looking at it backwards - what reason would we have for thinking some galaxies have reversed course? Especially considering the very large amount of data we have representing galaxies at a lot of different distances.
 
I think you have a valid point if we were to measure only the galaxies far away, but as Russ says, we also have data from nearer galaxies which is more 'up-to-date' information and thus supports the theory that everything continues to be redshifted as the universe gets older.
 
We can't know what's going on in the unobservable undetectable part of the universe (which might be to the observable as our observable is to an atom) by what's going on in our smaller detectable, or observable part.
 
Just a historical point, although Hubble is credited with the discovery that Galaxies are moving away from us, his conclusion was more from chance than anything - the error bars are huge. There's also the fact he could only measure light from galaxies in our local cluster, which in general do not obey v=Hd, due to gravity.
 
Hubble's conclusion enjoy continued support by more modern observations, and are independently confirmed using standard candles.
 
Kracatoan said:
Just a historical point, although Hubble is credited with the discovery that Galaxies are moving away from us, his conclusion was more from chance than anything - the error bars are huge. There's also the fact he could only measure light from galaxies in our local cluster, which in general do not obey v=Hd, due to gravity.

Just to be sure the historical record is clear for everyone here, note please, that Hubble and Humason did not conclude that redshifted nebula were receding from us.

“Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term ‘apparent’ velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

Others concluded the distant objects were receding; the greater the redshift, the greater the recession velocity.
 
Hi La_Mettrie...

So how do we know galaxies are still all racing away from each other if the data we're getting is old news, so to speak?

It is old news...some is 13.7 billions years old...from the first light of the early universe.
As noted already, we can't know for sure stuff is still expanding. When you see tail lights from a car headed away from you down the highway and they appear dimmer and dimmer what do you assume...usually that the car continues to move away,right. There is no proof, maybe some dust or some fog moves in...and the light would likely reflect differently...but so far we don't know of anything like that in open cosmological space.


Day after day after day,weekly,monthly, for many years we get slightly 'newer' light from
vast distances and so far each day's data is similar to yesterday's showing distant galaxies moving away. A basic reason we think that will continue is the FLRW cosmological model most cosmologists utilize...it's the best model so far...: it uses as input assumptions that space is basically the same everywhere...homogeneous and isotropic is how they describe that...so our distance measure via a scale factor [ a[t]] varies over time in a predictable way...but the expansion is now accelerating after having slowed down from the initial burst of expansion [called inflationary expansion'...

If you want to see Leonard Susskind explain expansion, go to 'youtube Cosmology Lectures Susskind' and try Lecture # 3...he explains in simple terms with simply math what we think.
I just came across it a few weeks ago and was astounded by his straightforward explanations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K