Starship Asterisk*

neufer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:25 pm >>>

---

Estimated values of the Hubble constant, 2001–2019. Estimates in black represent calibrated distance ladder measurements which tend to cluster around 73 km/s/Mpc, red represents early universe CMB/BAO measurements with ΛCDM parameters which show good agreement on a figure near 67 km/s/Mpc, while blue are other techniques, whose uncertainties are not yet small enough to decide between the two.

• Results from the new SDSS EBOSS 20-year survey sampling 2 million local objects (galaxies and quasars filling 6Gyr to 11Gyr look-back time), mapped more precisely the growth of BAOs (characteristic separation) from the CMB origin through large scale structure of the local universe. Claiming to have the "most accurate expansion history measurements over the widest-ever range of cosmic time", the Hubble constant is closer the Planck result (between 67.4 and 69.0 km/s/Mpc)
  → It's particularly interesting that expansion of BAOs from CMB to local objects appears consistent with Planck, but the Hubble constant determined from local redshifts is not.

  

• The Kilo-Degree Survey (KIDS) mapped 31 million galaxies in 1000 square degrees to evaluate the clumping of gravitating matter on a finer scale.
  → Analysis yields the distribution is about 8.3% smoother than theory predicts

• The Dark Energy Survey has just submitted their results.
  → Analysis yields the clumping is 5.5% less

S&T Article wrote: Starting three or so years from now, the European Space Agency’s Euclid mission and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory will greatly improve on current surveys, both in sensitivity and in sky coverage. Eventually, it will become clear whether or not we’ll have to discard our cherished theoretical model of the universe.

alter-ego wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:15 am
Mission accomplished.

neufer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:12 pm …

Would you mind telling us what your background on these matters is

• An observer today would see all objects with z < 2.3 speeding up (increasing redshifts) forever, while

• A few objects with z ≈ 2.3 have a redshift derivative, dz/dt, =0 showing a near-constant redshift for billions of years

• All objects with z >2.3 are decelerating relatively quickly (higher-z, faster deceleration) toward minima further into the future
  → Assuming a present redshift =50 ( emission time ≈ 50Myr), its minimum occurs about 11Gyrs from now at z = 23 (for the future observer)
  → For an past observer at the time acceleration begins to dominate (~7.3Gyr after the Big Bang), all objects would be slowing down

alter-ego wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:31 am

neufer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:38 pm

alter-ego wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:57 am

• This statement is not from the paper and looks plain wrong. What comoving distance (i.e. event horizon or particle horizon) is being referred to? Without more context, 19Gpc makes no sense - it is ~36% larger than the observable universe (aka particle horizon). Correctly stated in Wiki's first paragraph (quoted by Art), the particle horizon currently has a fundamental, limiting radius ~47Gly ( or ~14Gpc).
  → Per the current ΛCDM model, NOTHING beyond this radius has been or will ever be observable. It's a hard-wall boundary to anything observable beyond it. Of course, as time progresses, the particle horizon grows as space expands without new energy/objects added to the system.

• Regarding the Even[t] Horizon, for any object with z ≥ ~1.8, the light emitted today will never reach the Earth. Those higher-z objects are beyond our Event Horizon (comoving distance ≈ 16Gly) - Also not 19Gpc.

Granted...however, it is still not clear (to me at least) if the 2001 paper [cue the _Also sprach Zarathustra_ music] takes into account the fact that the Hubble [space] constant is decreasing in time such that ~14Gpc may not in the future represent the distance at which objects recede at the speed of light.

Well, if you're suggesting that the 19Gpc calculation did not include the slowing of the Hubble constant over time, that might be true. However, it isn't the paper, it's whoever wrote the Wiki paragraph. I've gone through the Cosmic expansion math in both the closed-form solution (Ω_VAC & Ω_M) in proper coordinates, and the more general comoving coordinate solution by integrating Friedmanns Eq. (includes radiation, Ω_R). I checked Loeb's results at Z=10, and agrees very well. His plots/calculations therefore must include the time dependence of H, and his approach is the closed-form one. In fact the Hubble constant is handled correctly in the paper. Unfortunately, the paper does not reveal many great analytical equations that very well describe cosmic expansion at times >10Myr after the Big Bang. As an example, the Hubble constant varies with time as:

Where Ho and Ωo are the Hubble constant and Vacuum energy fraction today. H_t and t are the Hubble constant at an arbitrary time, t, past or future). Of course, t=0 is the Big Bang.

neufer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:38 pm

alter-ego wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:57 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe wrote:
...In addition, light emitted by objects currently situated beyond a certain comoving distance (currently about 19 billion parsecs) will never reach Earth.

• This statement is not from the paper and looks plain wrong. What comoving distance (i.e. event horizon or particle horizon) is being referred to? Without more context, 19Gpc makes no sense - it is ~36% larger than the observable universe (aka particle horizon). Correctly stated in Wiki's first paragraph (quoted by Art), the particle horizon currently has a fundamental, limiting radius ~47Gly ( or ~14Gpc).
  → Per the current ΛCDM model, NOTHING beyond this radius has been or will ever be observable. It's a hard-wall boundary to anything observable beyond it. Of course, as time progresses, the particle horizon grows as space expands without new energy/objects added to the system.

• Regarding the Even[t] Horizon, for any object with z ≥ ~1.8, the light emitted today will never reach the Earth. Those higher-z objects are beyond our Event Horizon (comoving distance ≈ 16Gly) - Also not 19Gpc.

Granted...however, it is still not clear (to me at least) if the 2001 paper [cue the _Also sprach Zarathustra_ music] takes into account the fact that the Hubble [space] constant is decreasing in time such that ~14Gpc may not in the future represent the distance at which objects recede at the speed of light.

alter-ego wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:57 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe wrote:
...In addition, light emitted by objects currently situated beyond a certain comoving distance (currently about 19 billion parsecs) will never reach Earth.

• This statement is not from the paper and looks plain wrong. What comoving distance (i.e. event horizon or particle horizon) is being referred to? Without more context, 19Gpc makes no sense - it is ~36% larger than the observable universe (aka particle horizon). Correctly stated in Wiki's first paragraph (quoted by Art), the particle horizon currently has a fundamental, limiting radius ~47Gly ( or ~14Gpc).
  → Per the current ΛCDM model, NOTHING beyond this radius has been or will ever be observable. It's a hard-wall boundary to anything observable beyond it. Of course, as time progresses, the particle horizon grows as space expands without new energy/objects added to the system.

• Regarding the Even[t] Horizon, for any object with z ≥ ~1.8, the light emitted today will never reach the Earth. Those higher-z objects are beyond our Event Horizon (comoving distance ≈ 16Gly) - Also not 19Gpc.

http://132.236.6.82/the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate wrote:

Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?
Answered by Dave Rothstein
Last updated February 10, 2016.

<<Which galaxies are currently "saying their last goodbyes?" That is, if we imagine that there are aliens living in these galaxies who hope to make contact with us, which galaxies are running up against their deadline right at this moment? A reasonable guess would be that the galaxies which are currently moving at the speed of light with respect to us (at a distance of 4,200 megaparsecs and redshift of 1.4, as discussed above) are at the "critical point" where any light they emit after now will never be able to reach us. Roughly speaking, this is correct, but a detailed calculation (such as the one contained in this paper) shows that for the simplest viable model of the universe's acceleration, it is actually galaxies at a distance of 4,740 megaparsecs and redshift of 1.69 that are just now reaching the critical point, while galaxies at a redshift of 1.4 are still emitting light that will eventually reach us.

The difference is due to a rather subtle fact: Even though the universe is "accelerating" in the sense that each galaxy moves faster as time goes on, the Hubble constant is actually decreasing with time -- in other words, the rate at which space is expanding, measured at a point which is at a fixed distance from us, gets smaller as time goes on. If we keep our eyes on an individual galaxy as it moves away from us, we will see it accelerate, but if we keep our eyes on a fixed point in space and watch many different galaxies go past that point, each galaxy's speed will be slower than the one before it. (As a very rough analogy, the universe behaves like a river with rapids. If you put a boat in the river and allow it to be carried by the flow, it will accelerate as it moves downstream and enters the rapids. But if you sit on the bank and measure the speed of the water at one location, it changes based on an entirely different set of factors -- for example, the rate at which the supply of water from upstream is changing. It is possible for the water speed at your location to decrease with time, even though each boat that you release accelerates as it heads into the rapids.) Because of this effect, if light is able to "swim against the tide" and remain at a roughly constant distance with respect to us (as would happen if it is emitted from a galaxy moving away from us at the speed of light), then as time goes on and the Hubble constant decreases, it will eventually be able to gain ground, "swim upstream" and traverse the necessary distance of space to reach us.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe wrote: ...
As the universe's expansion is accelerating, all currently observable objects will eventually appear to freeze in time, while emitting progressively redder and fainter light. For instance, objects with the current redshift z from 5 to 10 will remain observable for no more than 4–6 billion years. In addition, light emitted by objects currently situated beyond a certain comoving distance (currently about 19 billion parsecs) will never reach
Earth.^[17]

For instance, objects with the current redshift z from 5 to 10 will remain observable for no more than 4–6 billion years.

• Per the referenced paper: Objects with the current redshift z from 5 to 10 "will be only visible up to an age of 4-6 billion years" (entirely different meaning). It takes an infinite amount of time to reach the observable limiting age of these objects. After 45Gyr to 50Gyr from now the observed ages will be within 5% of their asymptote limits.
  → For present ΛCDM expansion parameters, these objects will theoretically be visible forever, although progressively getting fainter and redshifted. Presently, the objects' ages range from 0.5 - 1Gy. It's ironic that as slow as cosmic evolution is, one could say these objects will evolve in slow motion until apparently nearly frozen in time 50Gyr from now.

In addition, light emitted by objects currently situated beyond a certain comoving distance (currently about 19 billion parsecs) will never reach Earth.

• This statement is not from the paper and looks plain wrong. What comoving distance (i.e. event horizon or particle horizon) is being referred to? Without more context, 19Gpc makes no sense - it is ~36% larger than the observable universe (aka particle horizon). Correctly stated in Wiki's first paragraph (quoted by Art), the particle horizon currently has a fundamental, limiting radius ~47Gly ( or ~14Gpc).
  → Per the current ΛCDM model, NOTHING beyond this radius has been or will ever be observable. It's a hard-wall boundary to anything observable beyond it. Of course, as time progresses, the particle horizon grows as space expands without new energy/objects added to the system.

• Regarding the Even Horizon, for any object with z ≥ ~1.8, the light emitted today will never reach the Earth. Those higher-z objects are beyond our Event Horizon (comoving distance ≈ 16Gly) - Also not 19Gpc.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:46 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:11 am

rwlott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:36 am
Ahead! Warp factor 9 gazillion, Mr. Sulu!

• The warp factor : 250,000

I think that's too fast. Warp 250000 would be 15.625e15 (15.625 quadrillion) times the speed light. That's a light year in about 2.02 nanoseconds, or a Gly in 2 seconds, or 27 secs to cover 13.8 Gly. Since the length of the video is 58 seconds, we'd only need to go about half the effective speed of warp 250000, which, by the magic of cubes is "only" about warp 198000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe wrote:

---

<<The observable universe is a spherical region of the universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes and exploratory probes at the present time. According to calculations, the current comoving—proper distance, which takes into account that the universe has expanded since the light was emitted—to particles from which the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was emitted, which represents the radius of the visible universe, is about 45.7 billion light-years, while the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 46.6 billion light-years, about 2% larger. The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years.

As the universe's expansion is accelerating, all currently observable objects will eventually appear to freeze in time, while emitting progressively redder and fainter light. For instance, objects with the current redshift z from 5 to 10 will remain observable for no more than 4–6 billion years. In addition, light emitted by objects currently situated beyond a certain comoving distance (currently about 19 billion parsecs) will never reach Earth.>>

neufer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:11 am

rwlott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:36 am
Ahead! Warp factor 9 gazillion, Mr. Sulu!

• The warp factor : 250,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive wrote:
<<The warp drive velocity in Star Trek is generally expressed in "warp factor" units, which—according to Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual—corresponds to the magnitude of the warp field. Achieving warp factor 1 is equal to breaking the light barrier, while the actual velocity corresponding to higher factors is determined using an ambiguous formula. According to the Star Trek episode writer's guide for The Original Series, warp factors are converted to multiples of the speed of light by multiplication with the cubic function of the warp factor itself. Accordingly, "warp 1" is equivalent to the speed of light, "warp 2" is eight times the speed of light, "warp 3" is 27 times the speed of light, etc. Several episodes of The Original Series placed the Enterprise in peril by having it travel at high warp factors. However, the velocity (in present dimensional units) of any given warp factor is rarely the subject of explicit expression, and travel times for specific interstellar distances are not consistent through the various series.

In The Original Series, warp factor 6 was established as the common speed of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701. In some cases, the starship traveled at warp 7 or above, but with risk of damaging the ship or the engines. Warp 9 in The Original Series was the "never exceed" speed for the hulls and engines of Constitution-class starships, equivalent to the aircraft VNE V-speed. Warp 6 was the VNO "Normal Operation" maximum safe cruising speed for that vessel class. Only five stories in the original Star Trek series involved the Enterprise traveling beyond warp 9. In any instance, it was a result of the influence of alien beings or foreign technology. The warp 14.1 incident in That Which Survives was the result of runaway engines which brought the hull within seconds of structural failure before power was disengaged.>>

rwlott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:36 am
Ahead! Warp factor 9 gazillion, Mr. Sulu!

• The warp factor : 250,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive wrote:
<<The warp drive velocity in Star Trek is generally expressed in "warp factor" units, which—according to Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual—corresponds to the magnitude of the warp field. Achieving warp factor 1 is equal to breaking the light barrier, while the actual velocity corresponding to higher factors is determined using an ambiguous formula. According to the Star Trek episode writer's guide for The Original Series, warp factors are converted to multiples of the speed of light by multiplication with the cubic function of the warp factor itself. Accordingly, "warp 1" is equivalent to the speed of light, "warp 2" is eight times the speed of light, "warp 3" is 27 times the speed of light, etc. Several episodes of The Original Series placed the Enterprise in peril by having it travel at high warp factors. However, the velocity (in present dimensional units) of any given warp factor is rarely the subject of explicit expression, and travel times for specific interstellar distances are not consistent through the various series.

In The Original Series, warp factor 6 was established as the common speed of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701. In some cases, the starship traveled at warp 7 or above, but with risk of damaging the ship or the engines. Warp 9 in The Original Series was the "never exceed" speed for the hulls and engines of Constitution-class starships, equivalent to the aircraft VNE V-speed. Warp 6 was the VNO "Normal Operation" maximum safe cruising speed for that vessel class. Only five stories in the original Star Trek series involved the Enterprise traveling beyond warp 9. In any instance, it was a result of the influence of alien beings or foreign technology. The warp 14.1 incident in That Which Survives was the result of runaway engines which brought the hull within seconds of structural failure before power was disengaged.>>

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:56 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:39 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:18 pm
Then how do you explain that the video ends on all white galaxies rather than very faint red galaxies :?:

My assumption would be that the most distant, dimmest galaxies have only a single channel of data- either collected through no filter, or summed from several, in order to get a reasonable signal-to-noise.

A very (infra)red single channel of data...
so why all white galaxies if they stuck to a fixed balancing of channels to get realistic color :?:

It would be silly to go to all the effort to correct the perceived galaxy positions for a distant observer
and not to also correct the perceived colors for that same observer.

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:22 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

orin stepanek wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:50 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:30 pm

What’s at the end of the known universe you ask?
Why, the unknown universe of course!

Ya; but I like to imagine!

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:39 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:18 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:27 pm
It would make for an interesting video to actively adjust the colors to approximate their actual appearance based on the changing distance.

But I don't think this was done here.

Then how do you explain that the video ends on all white galaxies rather than very faint red galaxies

My assumption would be that the most distant, dimmest galaxies have only a single channel of data- either collected through no filter, or summed from several, in order to get a reasonable signal-to-noise.

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:18 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:27 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:08 pm
In the first image the "ratio of intensities between data from two or three broadband filtered channels" is used to accurately determine the wide variety of colors. Any zoomed in version of this first image would simply repeat the same colors (along with the same 2D arrangement of galaxies).

Spectrally determined redshifts allow for a repositioning of everything into a 3D arrangement of the galaxies.

In passing through this 3D arrangement of the galaxies it would seem to make sense then to also vary the "ratio of intensities between data from two or three broadband filtered channels" to simulate the apparent variety of colors for the displaced observer.

The final images should all contain very faint distant red galaxies were it not for the fact that the intensity of the longest wave channel has been both intensified & (blue)shifted into all white galaxies in order to best simulate the view of the displaced observer.

Our attention is primarily on the nearby brighter galaxies whizzing by for which the readjusted (blue)shifted color change is too subtle to notice.

It would make for an interesting video to actively adjust the colors to approximate their actual appearance based on the changing distance.

But I don't think this was done here.

Then how do you explain that the video ends on all white galaxies rather than very faint red galaxies :?:

orin stepanek wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:50 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:30 pm

orin stepanek wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:34 am
I've often wondered what was at the end of the known universe! There can only be one answer;--more space! but what is there?

What’s at the end of the known universe you ask?
Why, the unknown universe of course!

Ya; but I like to imagine!

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:27 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:08 pm
In the first image the "ratio of intensities between data from two or three broadband filtered channels" is used to accurately determine the wide variety of colors. Any zoomed in version of this first image would simply repeat the same colors (along with the same 2D arrangement of galaxies).

Spectrally determined redshifts allow for a repositioning of everything into a 3D arrangement of the galaxies.

In passing through this 3D arrangement of the galaxies it would seem to make sense then to also vary the "ratio of intensities between data from two or three broadband filtered channels" to simulate the apparent variety of colors for the displaced observer.

The final images should all contain very faint distant red galaxies were it not for the fact that the intensity of the longest wave channel has been both intensified & (blue)shifted into all white galaxies in order to best simulate the view of the displaced observer.

Our attention is primarily on the nearby brighter galaxies whizzing by for which the readjusted (blue)shifted color change is too subtle to notice.

It would make for an interesting video to actively adjust the colors to approximate their actual appearance based on the changing distance.

But I don't think this was done here.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:30 pm

orin stepanek wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:34 am I've often wondered what was at the end of the known universe! There can only be one answer;--more space! but what is there?

What’s at the end of the known universe you ask? Why, the unknown universe of course!

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:08 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:24 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:15 pm
It is not clear to me that the "Flight through the Hubble Ultra Deep Field" isn't simply
slowly readjusting the redshift to be the redshift from the local observer's viewpoint.

(If I had nailed the distances that's certainly what I would have done.)

Not sure what you mean. I don't see anything to suggest that the redshift is being adjusted in any way. (Of course, the redshift can't be determined reliably from this data, only a ratio of intensities between data from two or three broadband filtered channels, which is a weak indicator of redshift at best.)

In the first image the "ratio of intensities between data from two or three broadband filtered channels" is used to accurately determine the wide variety of colors. Any zoomed in version of this first image would simply repeat the same colors (along with the same 2D arrangement of galaxies).

Spectrally determined redshifts allow for a repositioning of everything into a 3D arrangement of the galaxies.

In passing through this 3D arrangement of the galaxies it would seem to make sense then to also vary the "ratio of intensities between data from two or three broadband filtered channels" to simulate the apparent variety of colors for the displaced observer.

The final images should all contain very faint distant red galaxies were it not for the fact that the intensity of the longest wave channel has been both intensified & (blue)shifted into all white galaxies in order to best simulate the view of the displaced observer.

Our attention is primarily on the nearby brighter galaxies whizzing by for which the readjusted (blue)shifted color change is too subtle to notice.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:24 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:15 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:48 pm
We need to be careful in reckoning redshift from apparent color.
Redshifted objects don't necessarily appear more red to our eyes.

It is not clear to me that the "Flight through the Hubble Ultra Deep Field" isn't simply
slowly readjusting the redshift to be the redshift from the local observer's viewpoint.

(If I had nailed the distances that's certainly what I would have done.)

Not sure what you mean. I don't see anything to suggest that the redshift is being adjusted in any way. (Of course, the redshift can't be determined reliably from this data, only a ratio of intensities between data from two or three broadband filtered channels, which is a weak indicator of redshift at best.)

neufer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:15 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:48 pm

Iksarfighter wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:53 am
Why are some objects more red shifted but closer than some others pls ?

We need to be careful in reckoning redshift from apparent color.
Redshifted objects don't necessarily appear more red to our eyes.

It is not clear to me that the "Flight through the Hubble Ultra Deep Field" isn't simply
slowly readjusting the redshift to be the redshift from the local observer's viewpoint.

(If I had nailed the distances that's certainly what I would have done.)

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:48 pm

Iksarfighter wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:53 am
Why are some objects more red shifted but closer than some others pls ?

We need to be careful in reckoning redshift from apparent color.
Redshifted objects don't necessarily appear more red to our eyes.

Iksarfighter wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:53 am Why are some objects more red shifted but closer than some others pls ?