Revealing Secrets of Distant Supernova DES16C2nm: 10.5 Billion Years Ago

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ziang
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Supernova
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the supernova DES16C2nm, which exploded 10.5 billion years ago, particularly concerning its distance from Earth at the time of the explosion and the effects of cosmic expansion on this distance. Participants explore theoretical aspects of cosmology, redshift, and the interpretation of distances in an expanding universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the supernova was 10.5 billion light-years away from Earth at the time of the explosion, suggesting that due to the expansion of the universe, it must have been closer.
  • There is a discussion about how to calculate the distance of the star at the time of the explosion, with references to specific calculators and redshift values.
  • Some participants assert that the proper distance to the supernova was 5.5 billion light-years at emission and 17.3 billion light-years at reception, with clarifications on what these distances represent.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of recession velocities exceeding the speed of light, with some arguing that such statements depend on the conventions used in cosmology.
  • Participants discuss the nature of cosmic expansion and its effects on the observed distances and travel time of light from distant objects.
  • A hypothetical analogy involving an ant on a stretching rubber band is used to illustrate the complexities of distance changes in an expanding universe.
  • There is a query about the basis for concluding that the universe is expanding rather than galaxies simply moving away from each other.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of cosmic expansion and the interpretation of distances. There is no consensus on several points, including the nature of recession velocities and the definitions of distances in cosmological contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the assumptions and conventions used in cosmology, particularly regarding the definitions of distances and recession velocities, which may not be universally agreed upon.

  • #61
Viopia said:
It is no wonder I needed time to digest what Bandersnatch said. I thought we were talking about real velocities. Ibix's comment about the Sun can be described in the following way:- As a you ''turn around'' the Sun does not circle you, you merely turn around so that the light hitting your retina (after passing the crystalline lens in your eye) scribes an ark on your retina. The light hitting your retina only tavells around an inch per second which is far less than the speed of light.
This is not the point he was making.

The point is that the coordinate speeds of a stationary object in a rotating coordinate system are directly proportional to the distance and if the distance is far enough then the coordinate speeds easily exceed the speed of light.

How fast the spot of light moves on the retina is also not bounded by the speed of light. The light at subsequent moments is not the same light pulse. There is no light moving along the retina.
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #62
Viopia said:
As a you ''turn around'' the Sun does not circle you,
Sure it does. That motion is no more or less real than any other.
 
  • #63
Orodruin said:
Ibix said:
Sure it does. That motion is no more or less real than any other.
If what you say is correct, the Earth traveling around the Sun could be thought of as the Sun rotating while the Earth is stationary. If the the Earth had no orbital velocity it would crash into the Sun. This means there is a difference.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
  • #64
Orodruin said:
There is no light moving along the retina.
No there isn't any light moving on the retina, just lke the Sun is not moving faster than the speed of light.
 
  • #65
Viopia said:
the Earth traveling around the Sun could be thought of as the Sun rotating while the Earth is stationary.

Well, yes. What's the problem with that? Motion is relative. That is the very basic thing.
 
  • #66
Actually, working in a rotating frame where the Earth is stationary is one of the easiest ways to work out orbital dynamics. You get a centrifugal potential that makes it different from the non-rotating case, but it is not any more or less real.
 
  • #67
Viopia said:
No there isn't any light moving on the retina, just lke the Sun is not moving faster than the speed of light.
Why do you ask questions and then, when we answer or explain, just say "no"?
 
  • #68
Viopia said:
No there isn't any light moving on the retina, just lke the Sun is not moving faster than the speed of light.
That’s the point. However, it is not ”just like”. In the former case it is a question of taking a speed of something that is not an actual object and in the latter a coordinate speed that is the coordinate speed of the Sun - an actual object.

Also, please be more careful with your quotes. You just attributed one of your answers to me making it seem I said something I did not.
 
  • #69
Orodruin said:
That’s the point.

Also, please be more careful with your quotes. You just attributed your answer to me making it seem I said something I did not.
I am sorry the quote was not from you. I don't know how this couild have happened. I was trying to answer two questions close together and used the prompt after highlighting the part I wanted to answer.
 
  • #70
Ibix said:
Why do you ask questions and then, when we answer or explain, just say "no"?
I sometimes don't understand the answers. When this happens I try to say what does not make sense to me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
600
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K