The present expansion of the universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter se00064
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the current expansion of the universe, questioning how we can know it is expanding at this moment given that observations of distant galaxies are based on light that has taken millions of years to reach Earth. Participants explore the implications of redshift and the potential for misinterpretation of the data due to the time delay in light travel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express uncertainty about how we can know the universe is currently expanding, given that light from distant galaxies is from the past.
  • There is a suggestion that the apparent expansion could be an illusion based on older light from a time when the universe was expanding more rapidly.
  • One participant argues that the laws of physics are unlikely to have changed since the light left those objects, which supports the idea of ongoing expansion.
  • Another participant questions the certainty of the universe's expansion, suggesting that distant stars could be changing direction without our knowledge due to the time it takes for light to reach us.
  • Some participants note that a sudden change in the direction of distant stars would require an external force or a dramatic change in the laws of physics.
  • There are mentions of plausible models that suggest the universe could recollapse in the future, but not since the light left those objects.
  • The discussion includes the idea that gravity's influence on expansion depends on the universe's contents, implying that a change in expansion would require a significant alteration in those contents.
  • One participant emphasizes that the conclusion of ongoing expansion is based on past observations and the absence of known reasons for it to stop, while another highlights the importance of fitting models to the observed data.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some agreeing on the constancy of physical laws while others remain skeptical about the certainty of the universe's current state of expansion. The discussion reflects multiple competing perspectives and remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding due to the time delay in light travel and the potential for changes in the state of distant stars that cannot be observed directly.

se00064
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi, my question just came to me the other day, and I can't appease myself as to the answer.
Basically, I am unsure as to how we know the universe is expanding right now at this present moment in time.
If our observations of the red shift are all from galaxies and stars that are extremely far away (~millions of light years) then the light has taken millions of years to reach Earth. Therefore we know nothing of what those stars are doing right NOW.
Similarly, we are told that objects are moving (the universe is expanding) quicker the further objects are from us, but mightn't this just be an illusion? The further an object is from us, the "older" the light we observe is, therefore, may we not just be looking at the light from a period when the universe was expanding quicker and seeing it now only because those objects are further from us in the first place?
Thanks in advance
 
Space news on Phys.org
We don't. We don't even know that the distant galaxies are still there - every star outside our own galaxy could have completely disappeared and we wouldn't know in our lifetimes.
 
se00064 said:
Hi, my question just came to me the other day, and I can't appease myself as to the answer.
Basically, I am unsure as to how we know the universe is expanding right now at this present moment in time.
If our observations of the red shift are all from galaxies and stars that are extremely far away (~millions of light years) then the light has taken millions of years to reach Earth. Therefore we know nothing of what those stars are doing right NOW.
Similarly, we are told that objects are moving (the universe is expanding) quicker the further objects are from us, but mightn't this just be an illusion? The further an object is from us, the "older" the light we observe is, therefore, may we not just be looking at the light from a period when the universe was expanding quicker and seeing it now only because those objects are further from us in the first place?
Thanks in advance
As long as we accept that the laws of physics are unlikely to have changed radically since the light left those objects, there is no problem. And since all tests of the constancy of the laws of physics have shown that they are highly constant within our universe, I'd say that's a pretty good bet.
 
Chalnoth said:
As long as we accept that the laws of physics are unlikely to have changed radically since the light left those objects, there is no problem. And since all tests of the constancy of the laws of physics have shown that they are highly constant within our universe, I'd say that's a pretty good bet.

I wasn't questioning whether the laws of physics are changing, but only the state of the stars. For instance, the furthest visible stars from us could actually be changing direction and contracting back again, but we could not know since the light we see from them was sent millions of years ago. Therefore, how can anyone say that we know with any certainty that the universe is still expanding?
 
se00064 said:
I wasn't questioning whether the laws of physics are changing, but only the state of the stars. For instance, the furthest visible stars from us could actually be changing direction and contracting back again, but we could not know since the light we see from them was sent millions of years ago. Therefore, how can anyone say that we know with any certainty that the universe is still expanding?
They can't simply change direction without some sort of external force acting on them. Hence, there would have to be some sort of sudden change in the laws of physics for this to happen.

Now, there do exist somewhat plausible physical models that have the universe recollapsing sometimes in the distant future, but there really isn't any reasonable way for it to have happened since the light left those objects.
 
Chalnoth said:
They can't simply change direction without some sort of external force acting on them. Hence, there would have to be some sort of sudden change in the laws of physics for this to happen.

Now, there do exist somewhat plausible physical models that have the universe recollapsing sometimes in the distant future, but there really isn't any reasonable way for it to have happened since the light left those objects.

Gravity?
 
se00064 said:
Gravity?
Gravity, however, depends upon the contents of the universe. To have the expansion suddenly change would require a dramatic change in the contents of the universe.
 
Chalnoth said:
Gravity, however, depends upon the contents of the universe. To have the expansion suddenly change would require a dramatic change in the contents of the universe.

So our conclusion that the universe is expanding to this day is based on the observation that at some point in the past we know it was expanding, and we do not know of any reason in our laws of physics that would cause it to stop expanding (roughly speaking)?
 
se00064 said:
So our conclusion that the universe is expanding to this day is based on the observation that at some point in the past we know it was expanding, and we do not know of any reason in our laws of physics that would cause it to stop expanding (roughly speaking)?
It's quite a bit more than that. Basically, when we look out in space, we are seeing a slice of the past universe through time. To this slice of the universe we fit a model that both describes gravity and the contents of the universe. That model is supported by a wide body of diverse evidence, so we have a fair amount of confidence that it is at least approximately accurate.

If you'd like to get some idea as to the general classes of evidence we have available, see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
 
  • #10
Chalnoth said:
It's quite a bit more than that. Basically, when we look out in space, we are seeing a slice of the past universe through time. To this slice of the universe we fit a model that both describes gravity and the contents of the universe. That model is supported by a wide body of diverse evidence, so we have a fair amount of confidence that it is at least approximately accurate.

If you'd like to get some idea as to the general classes of evidence we have available, see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Thank you for your patience and advice.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How do you get to the conclusion that there is accelerating expansion?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Undergrad Blueshift in case of the Big Crunch scenario
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
High School Can the "creation" of space in the Universe affect the speed of light?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
High School Conflict between the conservation of matter and the rapid expansion of our universe
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad Is the expansion of the universe affecting time or just space?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
High School Clarification on how old the Universe is
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Undergrad Why do we still see the CMB today?
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
13K
High School Size of the early universe as we see now
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
785
High School The accelerated expansion of the universe; redshift and time/distance
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad The Boundary of the Observable Universe
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K