PDA

View Full Version : Question 2 (redshift and apparent scale)



HUb'
2012-Jan-29, 09:20 AM
Astronomers refer to RED shift | and say something along the lines that it proves
the BIG universe is getting bigger. thUS the a. part of the 2 part Question is
Why should i not believe that instead of big Getting Bigger that Small is getting
Smaller. | that is to say the electron orbits around proton is shrinking over time
ant that shrinkage is the cause of the RED shift.

Part B. most of the far distant photos of galaxies look to me like they have
about the same shape and size as those near by (say a few thousand LY across}
i sure do not understand HOW galaxies Billions of yeas ago look just like @ NOW
any clues ?

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-29, 10:24 AM
My answer to part A is that with the the Universe getting
bigger, just one thing is getting bigger: the space that the
Universe occupies, while on the other hand, with everything
in the Universe getting smaller, gazillions and gazillions of
different things would each have to be getting smaller at
exactly the same rate, which I think would be an absurd
coincidence.

Part B:
The most distant galaxies we can see the shapes of really
aren't that far away. We are seeing them as they were
just a few billion years ago, not ten or twelve billion years
ago. Those very early galaxies are just spots and smudges
in even the highest-definition images.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Shaula
2012-Jan-29, 10:46 AM
There are several posts in the ATM discussing the shrinking universe idea. The main objection is that it requires a very complex set of rules about how things shrink to reproduce what we see. Quantum mechanics chokes, basically. Expansion and contraction can be forced to be equivalent but the simpler formulation is expansion. Requires fewer tweaks and arbitrary rules to make work.

HUb'
2012-Jan-29, 02:17 PM
photo MAYBE} (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/512542main_old-object-670.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/farthest-galaxy.html&h=503&w=670&sz=312&tbnid=w6sZkPpK5mnHGM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=123&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dphotos%2Bof%2Bdistant%2Bgalaxies%2BHU BBLE%2BTELESCOPE%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=photos+of+distant+galaxies+HUBBLE+TELESCOPE&docid=8J1oGkZ145Y8ZM&sa=X&ei=rFMlT9reLseQiQKrv6XyBw&ved=0CD0Q9QEwCA&dur=15774)



+ Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2012-Jan-29, 03:06 PM
Ah, yes. UDFj-39546284. I know it very, very poorly.

The light we see from that smudge left it an astonishing
13.2 billion years ago. I saved that image and a text about
it on my hard drive one year and five hours ago.

-- Jeff, ++ Minneapolis

Cougar
2012-Jan-29, 03:32 PM
Part B. most of the far distant photos of galaxies look to me like they have
about the same shape and size as those near by (say a few thousand LY across}
i sure do not understand HOW galaxies Billions of yeas ago look just like @ NOW
any clues ?

Well, your "looks to me like" method is pretty subjective, and apparently not very accurate. From this paper (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006AJ....132.1729B&db_key=AST&d %20ata_type=HTML&format=&high=45844ef51c10602) and a bit more analytical and comprehensive approach using the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field....



The image contains at least 10,000 objects, presented here as a catalog, the vast majority of which are galaxies. Visual inspection of the images shows few if any galaxies at redshifts greater than ~4 that resemble present-day spiral or elliptical galaxies. The image reinforces the conclusion from the original Hubble Deep Field that galaxies evolved strongly during the first few billion years in the infancy of the universe.