Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

Light from recombination is not "constantly shining" and that's why you see it. At a given time in the universe's history (actually a slightly extended period but I'll keep things simple), and only at that time, photons decoupled from the ambient plasma and started travelling freely from all points in the universe. The photon background you see at any time ...


11

What you're asking about is the existence of surfaces of simultaneity. In SR, surfaces of simultaneity can be defined by measurement procedures such as Einstein synchronization, and they turn out to depend on one's frame of reference. In GR it gets a lot tougher to do this. We don't even have global frames of reference. It turns out that what you need in ...


10

It sounds like you're interested in when a spacetime admits a Cauchy surface. The answer is that every spacetime that is globally hyperbolic has this property. This was proved by Geroch in 1970 (article here, see Section 5). This includes most of the textbook relativistic spacetimes --- Schwarzschild, Kerr, FLRW, and many others. But there are some ...


9

Dark energy is an unknown or unattributed form of energy that is separate and distinct from the other forms of energy. It is not anti-engery. It is dark energy. Anti-energy (were such a thing to exist) would annihilate any form of energy. Dark energy is called "dark" because we aren't exactly sure what it really is or what causes it. The most abundant forms ...


6

The answer is yes. The de Broglie wavelengths of freely propagating particles (i.e. forget the influence of interactions and gravity perturbations, just consider the Universe as a whole) are redshifted by the expansion of the universe. Another way of saying this is that their peculiar momenta with respect to a co-moving local volume decrease as the inverse ...


6

Let me present a slightly different perspective to Luboš, though I'm saying basically the same thing. From our current location we can define an area of space called the future light cone. This is the region of spacetime that is connected to us by motion at less than or equal to the speed of light. If we draw a spacetime diagram then the lightcone looks ...


6

At a basic level: The universe, in the beginning was very hot. So hot in fact that there were no atoms, only electrons and protons and neutrons and photons flying around. The photons were scatting off of the electrons and protons, as they interacted strongly because the electrons and protons are charged. The universe was much like the plasma you find in ...


5

The acceleration of the expansion is currently observed to be happening. This observation is one of the pieces of data we use to infer the amount of dark matter. It tells us that there can't be more than a certain amount of dark matter, because that would be incompatible with the observed acceleration.


5

As for the straight line, yes. All objects will continue moving along geodesics (a straight line in curved-space but sometimes a curved line in straight-space) if there are no external forces acting on them. Unless, by different velocity you mean the direction is not entirely radial to us. In that case, the expansion will cause the object's path to appear to ...


5

The Big Bang was originally defined as the zero time limit of the FLRW metric, so it's a mathematical construct and not primarily something physical. We have chosen to apply it to the zero time limit of the universe because we thought the FLRW metric was a good description of the universe, but then inflation gatecrashed the party and spoiled the fun. So if ...


4

The short answer is yes, the presence of dark matter would act to counter the expansion of the universe. And in fact it does--but not enough to stop the expansion. Dark matter has gravity just like normal matter. In fact, that's pretty much the only reason we know dark mater exists at all: we can observe dark matter's gravitation effects in the rotation ...


4

I will assume you are talking about the center of mass. If there's no external forces, the center of mass would conserve it's momentum. So, it would stay in constant speed, whatever what that speed is, with respect to whatever inertial frame of reference. This happens because Newton's third law. In the summation of all forces, the internal forces will ...


4

I am aware that my answer can sound surprising, too simple to be true, but please take a deep breath before downvoting.The answer has little to do with relativity. In SR it is the moving object that gets shorter , but space is stable. In such a universe, even if a body is receding at 2,3,30 c, its light will reach us sometime, and the time is short as it ...


4

The term "orbit" means that an object moves around a point in space on a certain path. Generally, this center point is an object - like your examples - or, in a binary system, a point in space called a barycenter, around which both bodies orbit. The barycenter is located at the system's center of mass. Commonly cited examples of orbiting objects are the ones ...


3

Generalizing the term "orbit" to mean some larger object / collection of objects to which the object in question is gravitationally bound, I'd say that the Milky Way "orbits" the Local Group, which in turn "orbits" the Virgo Supercluster. Beyond that, the expansion of the universe starts to dominate over gravitation. There are larger structures than ...


3

The relative speed between two objects is only restricted within the special theory of relativity. These restrictions are only guaranteed to apply in general relativity – the theory of curved space that you need for the Big Bang theory – if the space surrounding the objects is the flat Minkowski spacetime, or at least can be approximated by the flat ...


3

I will reply to Why isn't the CMB at the edges of the universe? Why is it flying around in the middle? The occurrence of space time and matter after the Big Bang happened to all points in our universe. The expansion of space happened at the same rate outwards for all points of the universe. All points of the universe 380.000 years ago had ...


3

If you take an isolated spherically symmetric object then the spacetime curvature around it is described by the Schwarzschild metric. The bending of the rubber sheet is meant to be an analogy for this curvature, but bear in mind it's just an analogy and is in many ways a poor representation of what actually happens. Anyhow, the Schwarzschild metric only ...


3

I think that "observable universe" is not defined precisely enough to make such statements about it. The spacetime events that we can see are the events on our past light cone. That light cone intersects the last-scattering surface (about 400,000 years after the big bang) in an approximate sphere. By convention the light cone is cut off there (because we ...


3

Galaxy rotation happens at a very slow rate (compared to the speed of light). Let's suppose you are observing a galaxy edge-on that the delay from the farthest point is $\Delta t = d/c$, where $d$ is the galaxy diameter. If we take the lag from one extreme point to the other as D: $D = vt = \frac{v}{c}t$ (where $v$ is the rotational speed). You can see ...


3

How a unit is chosen to be defined depends in large part on how precisely the unit can be reproduced based on that definition. Two different atomic clocks built using the best currently possible methods will produce almost exactly the same answer for how long a second is, to within about 1 part in $10^{14}$. The second is defined in terms of a property of ...


2

This is a statement about a congruence of null geodesics. We are looking for a conjugate point, which is just a place where the null geodesics cross each other. The theorem is putting a bound on how far you can advance the affine parameter $\nu$ along the geodesics before the conjugate point occurs (this is what is meant by affine parameter distance). ...


2

Galaxies would appear stretched along the line of sight, not jumbled. Let's say a galaxy is ten million light years away and, as you proposed, is 100,000 light years across and we see it nearly edge on. The front of the galaxy will appear to us as it did ten million years ago and the back of the galaxy as it did 10,100,000 years ago. Thus, if the galaxy ...


2

The argument is sound given a few oft-omitted (but not too unreasonable) assumptions. Here is one way it can be formulated. Consider a volume $V$. Suppose it has a (possibly infinite) set of possible configurations; call this set of states $S$. Suppose we are interested in a particular configuration, $c \in S$, to within a certain tolerance. Let $C ...


2

Space is indeed expanding everywhere, and not only between galaxies. The reason we don't grow with it, is that the attraction between the electrons and the protons is strong enough to keep them bounded. You can look at it as if they always re-adjust their position to counter the expansion of space. This also applies to our solar system, our galaxy, and even ...


2

There are (at least) two things going on. Perhaps the easiest place to start is with the temperature as estimated from the radiation in the universe - possibly what you are referring to when you say the temperature is approaching 0K? The radiation in the universe takes the form of thermal blackbody radiation. It is emitted by material in thermal equilibrium ...


2

The current entropy in the Universe is all stored in photons. The first reference by Qmechanic gives you the precise value. Since the photons of the CMBR do not at present interact with anything, the entropy of the Universe is very close to being a constant. What evolution there is, is all due to non-reversible processes in baryonic matter, but it amounts to ...


2

The question is what do we need the matter content of the universe for. As I understand it, in the usual case we want to find the conserved quantity associated with a certain conserved current gained by the projection of the energy-momentum tensor into a Killing vector, as for example in the paper by Abott and Deser. The requirement of asymptotical ...


2

The key output of the FLRW metric is the scale factor $a(t)$ as a function of time. From this we can calculate the time derivative $\dot{a}(t)$ (which is what the red shift measures) then check whether or not it satisfies the equation: $$ \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3} (\rho_{radiation} + \rho_{matter} + etc) $$ where the etc includes ...


2

One simple test that directly probes the model is the consistency relation between the angular diameter distance $d_A(z)$ and the luminosity distance $d_L(z)$ $$d_L(z) = (1+z)^2 d_A(z)$$ This relation holds regardless of the content and state of the Universe. If this is found to be violated then it would be a hard blow against the Friedmann Universe as one ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible