Why limited discussion of only looking at history

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of observing distant astronomical objects and the nature of time in relation to these observations. Participants explore the concept of looking into the past when observing the universe and question why this aspect is not more prominently discussed among physicists.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that observing distant objects means we are only seeing where they were in the past, raising questions about the validity of current calculations and theories based on these observations.
  • Another participant suggests that this aspect of observation is beneficial, as it provides a complete historical record of the universe, contrasting it with the challenges faced in biology regarding fossil records.
  • A different viewpoint questions the significance of knowing what distant objects are doing "now," suggesting that the light reaching us is all we can access, making the current state irrelevant.
  • One participant challenges the assertion that physicists do not discuss the implications of observing the past, stating that it is a well-known feature in the field and often referenced in discussions about the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the early universe.
  • Another participant emphasizes that nothing occurring on distant stars can affect us until the light from those stars reaches us, reiterating the temporal aspect of observation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of observing the past in astronomy. While some believe it is a critical aspect that is under-discussed, others assert that it is a well-established topic within the scientific community. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which this topic is addressed by physicists.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion over the perceived lack of discussion among physicists about observing the past, indicating a potential gap in communication or understanding within the community.

CONANGIB
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
When you look at a bird in a tree with binoculars, that is not the bird as it exists at the moment but the bird that was there before the light traveled to the scope, which for practical purposes is the bird. You can shoot the bird of before, and it will fall to the ground.

However, when you look at a distant object in a larger telescope, you are looking only further into the past. And we describe our existence and our history from that observation. Yet looking at the most massive galaxy in the known universe, it could in all probability not be there at the moment you look at it. You are looking only at where it was at the time when the light started moving toward the observer. So we are not describing the universe but what use to be in a particular area. How can we say this is this, and make these calculations and theories when we should understand we are looking only at something in the past. And the larger question, why don’t physicist talk more about this?
 
Space news on Phys.org
CONANGIB said:
So we are not describing the universe but what use to be in a particular area. How can we say this is this, and make these calculations and theories when we should understand we are looking only at something in the past.
This is actually a benefit, not a hindrance. Since the universe is fairly homogeneous, we have its complete history laid out in front of us to look at. Biologists wish they could be so lucky to have a complete fossil record laid out for them with no need to dig!
And the larger question, why don’t physicist talk more about this?
It is certainly a well known, discussed and understood feature.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hub...droid-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander and Dale
CONANGIB said:
How can we say this is this, and make these calculations and theories when we should understand we are looking only at something in the past.
Why is that a problem?
What difference can it make what it is doing right now, if we only have access to it when its light reaches us.

In your bird example, you are shooting at the bird of the past. Your bullet only travels at a few Machs. The bird may leave the perch by the time your bullet reaches it. But what can you do about it?
 
CONANGIB said:
When you look at a bird in a tree with binoculars, that is not the bird as it exists at the moment but the bird that was there before the light traveled to the scope, which for practical purposes is the bird. You can shoot the bird of before, and it will fall to the ground.

However, when you look at a distant object in a larger telescope, you are looking only further into the past. And we describe our existence and our history from that observation. Yet looking at the most massive galaxy in the known universe, it could in all probability not be there at the moment you look at it. You are looking only at where it was at the time when the light started moving toward the observer. So we are not describing the universe but what use to be in a particular area. How can we say this is this, and make these calculations and theories when we should understand we are looking only at something in the past. And the larger question, why don’t physicist talk more about this?

I don't understand this last part. Physicists (and astronomers and astrophysicists) DO talk about this, and talk about it a lot! It is why the CMB is always touted as the light during the INFANT universe, etc...etc. and why studying it is so important on understanding the early universe! Did you sleep through that?

I seldom fail to hear the claim that when we look at our most distant stars or galaxy, we are peering back into time. I have heard this many times, both in TV documentaries (please watch both versions of "Cosmos") and in print. So your assertion here that these were seldom mention is very puzzling. Maybe you don't remember them, or missed them. But do not confuse that with us neglecting such things.

Zz.
 
Also keep in mind that there is nothing happening on that far distant star "now" that can affect us here any sooner than the light leaving the star "now" arrives "here."
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How do you get to the conclusion that there is accelerating expansion?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Undergrad Why do we still see the CMB today?
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
13K
Undergrad Cosmic Event Horizon – Does it have any real effects?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
High School Clarification on how old the Universe is
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Importance of Science History for my Understanding of Science
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Decoherent histories for Young's experiment (with and without gas)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad 3 questions about a paper on density fluctuations in the Universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
History Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?
  • · Replies 270 ·
10
Replies
270
Views
28K
Undergrad How do physicists know that an external world exists?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K