![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
http://www.tng.iac.es/news/2009/04/24/grb/
What do you think of this link?Just as unseen dark energy is increasing the rate of expansion of the universe, there’s something else out there causing an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. Scientists believe the cause is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies beyond the observable universe, and they are calling it “Dark Flow,” in the vein of two other cosmological mysteries, dark matter and dark energy. “The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe’s expansion and does not change as distances increase,” said lead researcher Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for this motion.”
“We never expected to find anything like this,” he said.
According to Einstein's gravitation (not very popular lately though) our universe is much older (actually it is eternal) and the distance to the farthest point of its space (the other pole of 3-sphere universe) is about 13 Gpc. Another thing is that the redshift in Einstein's gravitation is related to the amount of matter around the redshifted object, which only on average is related to the distance.astrolabe wrote:1) Either our Universe is much larger than we think or 2) much older or 3) both
I say this not to convince Jim, because I don't think that's possible.JimJast wrote:According to Einstein's gravitation (not very popular lately though) our universe is much older (actually it is eternal) and the distance to the farthest point of its space (the other pole of 3-sphere universe) is about 13 Gpc. Another thing is that the redshift in Einstein's gravitation is related to the amount of matter around the redshifted object, which only on average is related to the distance.astrolabe wrote:1) Either our Universe is much larger than we think or 2) much older or 3) both
Yup Astro .. 600 million years poses some questions. However, with infinite power at work, 600 million years can also be viewed as a very long time (especially on a raft.)astrolabe wrote:Hello All,
I'm struggling to understand this. I know what I want to say but can't quite articulate it at this time. Quite frankly I find this event hard to believe. 1) Either our Universe is much larger than we think or 2) much older or 3) both.
I remember this stuff speculated on long ago .. more than 40 years ago .. they called it the Great Attractor towards which everything was rushing to, not to be confused with the latter day small and localized Great Attractor.harry wrote:G'day
September 23rd, 2008
Scientists Detect “Dark Flow:” Matter From Beyond the Visible Universe
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/23 ... -universe/
Just as unseen dark energy is increasing the rate of expansion of the universe, there’s something else out there causing an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. Scientists believe the cause is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies beyond the observable universe ..
Then why wasn't Einstien completely happy with it?Chris Peterson wrote: there is only one kind of gravitation described by GR, and the expanding, spacetime Universe, as supported by cosmological redshift, fits fully and beautifully within the predictions of GR.
Any complex theory is likely to be a work in progress. As such, its proponents are not going to be completely happy with it at any time. I don't know of any "big question" modern theories for which this isn't the case. That doesn't mean that such theories are substantively wrong, only that they are incomplete.aristarchusinexile wrote:Then why wasn't Einstien completely happy with it?
While we're mentioning Relativity, how can non-locality be demonstratable if Relativity says it's not possible? I asked this before, with urls for reference, and got no reply.Chris Peterson wrote:Any complex theory is likely to be a work in progress. As such, its proponents are not going to be completely happy with it at any time. I don't know of any "big question" modern theories for which this isn't the case. That doesn't mean that such theories are substantively wrong, only that they are incomplete.aristarchusinexile wrote:Then why wasn't Einstien completely happy with it?
What do you mean by "relativity" in this case? That is, specifically what are you saying predicts that non-locality is not possible? With respect to the limitations on locality established by relativistic QM, it is not clear that a violation has been demonstrated with high confidence. Finally, it remains entirely possible that GR and/or QM will be adjusted to come into better agreement with each other- that's really what finding a unified theory is all about. The fact that either GR or QM may be wrong in some cases (which is very likely) doesn't mean that both are not fundamentally correct.aristarchusinexile wrote:While we're mentioning Relativity, how can non-locality be demonstratable if Relativity says it's not possible? I asked this before, with urls for reference, and got no reply.
This object is observed with a redshift of 8.2, meaning it happened 13.1 billion years ago. Since then the Universe has expanded, so the object's current distance from us (called the comoving distance) is around 30 billion light years. None of this changes the 13.7 billion year age of the Universe.must-b-nuts wrote:Just a question: GRB 090423 If this object is observed at 13.1 Billion light years away it has had 13.1 Billion years to move farther away in an expanding universe and the universe is at least 26.2 billion years old, or twice as old as observed. It is most likely that the time/distance limits observed are limited by our ability to observe and obfuscated by background 'noise' from a/our local 'Big Bang" interstellar matter and subatomic particles.
It also means they could be fundamentally wrong. But I'm not concerned, really, just curious .. it's nice not to have credentials which tie me to a school of thought.Chris Peterson wrote: The fact that either GR or QM may be wrong in some cases (which is very likely) doesn't mean that both are not fundamentally correct.
Surely they mean more than 8.0 Gpc = 26.1 billion light-years. (ligth-years?)Qev wrote:Assuming you don't count the CMB as an event, of course.
A gamma-ray burst at a whopping-huge z=8.1, or more than 80 Gpc.![]()
http://www.tng.iac.es/news/2009/04/24/grb/
Yes. Those pesky little decimal points and zeros seem to cause no end of problems in scientific stories that migrate to the popular press. Sometimes they're even messed up in the original press releases.neufer wrote:Surely they mean more than 8.0 Gpc = 26.1 billion light-years. (ligth-years?)
A couple of things. First, there was (and is) no leading edge to the Big Bang. Every point is expanding away from every other point, and the expansion rate increases with distance. There is no center, and no edge. Second, there is no limit on the rate of expansion- two points can even be separating from each other at faster than light. That's why the visible Universe (the part we can see because there has been enough time for its light to reach us) is actually more than 90 billion light years across, even though it's only existed for 13.7 billion year. The space between us and the GRB has expanded a lot since the event happened 13+ billion years ago.GregLeavengood wrote:Perhaps one of you chaps can clear up my confusion. Shouldn't the gamma burst have hit us long before now? At the point of the Big Bang, all matter begins expanding out in all directions, the leading edge at the fastest speed, right? Even the very fastest rate would still have to be well below light speed though, right? So, a mere 630 million years of sub-light expansion isn't much of a head start for a light-speed gamma ray to overcome with 14-plus billion years to do it in. Even if, for the sake of arguement, the gamma source and the material that would one day become us were on exactly opposite vectors away from the central original point, doubling the lead, that's still only 1.26 billion years worth of relatively slow motoring next to a gamma ray. Say, for instance, we were talking about a speed ratio of 2 to 1. Wouldn't the light catch us in 2 or 3 billion years? Instead, we're getting hit over 14 billion years later, meaning that gamma ray actually travelled a distance of 14 billion light years to reach us, so the gap must have been much more formidable than I'm figuring. What am I missing here, guys?
Than how does redshift apply with this logic. The intrinsic properties wiuld shoot the data out of the roof.A couple of things. First, there was (and is) no leading edge to the Big Bang. Every point is expanding away from every other point, and the expansion rate increases with distance. There is no center, and no edge. Second, there is no limit on the rate of expansion- two points can even be separating from each other at faster than light. That's why the visible Universe (the part we can see because there has been enough time for its light to reach us) is actually more than 90 billion light years across, even though it's only existed for 13.7 billion year. The space between us and the GRB has expanded a lot since the event happened 13+ billion years ago.