Evidence for Universe Expansion Found

Yahoo (AP) ^ | 3/16/2006 | MATT CRENSON

[The_Victor]

The visible universe is more than 1 light year large (to put it mildly). Moving more than 1 light year in less time than 1 year would put a damper on every scientist who claims day in and day out that you can't accelerate mass faster than the Speed of Light.

*sigh*

I'll post it again - Space is expanding, but the objects (mass) in space do not move.

[Altair333]

If the universe expanded that fast, isn't that faster than light? I thought that was impossible.

[Old Professer]

Then wouldn't each body of mass be "seen" to grow as already formed planets, suns, etc?

[Netheron]

No, the radiation existed. There was just so much matter blocking it, that it couldn't go very far without being reabsorbed.

[ahayes]

You have just once again asked the single most popular question on this thread!

No. Things can't move through space faster than the speed of light, but space can stretch and carry things apart faster than the speed of light.

[Old Professer]

Or, is the writer trying to say that the condensed mass was so hot within his "soup" that it could only condense to planets, etc. by expanding?

[longshadow]

Behold, the "Festival of the Attention-Seeking Troll"....

Back to the article; this is terrific news; it builds upon what was already a substantial body of evidence in favor of the Inflationary Lambda-CDM model of Cosmology;

for those who actually are interested, here's the skinny on the CMBR Anisoptropies (before today's announcement!):

That's the Angular Power Spectrum of the Anisotropies in the CMBR predicted by the Lambda Cold Dark Matter variant of the Big Bang Cosmology, verus the actual measured values gathered by a variety of different observations. Check out that fit!

For those interested in the full skinny; see the source of the above graph for full details:

< Prof. Ned Wright's CMBR Anisotrpy Webpage/>

[ahayes]

Eh? I think you just reinvented the steady-state theory, but I'm not sure.

[LongElegantLegs]

That was so good, Chuck Norris liked it. ;-P

[wallcrawlr]

^{Revelation 4:11}Intelligent Design
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info

[The_Victor]

Thanks. I was 10 year old last time I read anything about these. I didn't realize that a thermal explaination had been demonstrated. I love Free Republic.

[freedumb2003]

What is it expanding into?..........

I don't know but now I have an explanation for the wife and the doctor... "hey, it's not just me -- it's the entire UNIVERSE!" ;)

[Southack]

"I'll post it again - Space is expanding, but the objects (mass) in space do not move."

That's the theory, but it doesn't align with reality. First, all of the mass in the universe won't fit into space the size of a marble. Second, all of the mass in that small of a space would have a gravity so large as to preclude any expansion or inflation. Third, all that theory is really doing is trying to explain away "why" matter in large clumps (read: planets and stars from each other) is currently getting farther apart...while ignoring that matter in large clumps per se is staying the same size (e.g. the Earth isn't expanding).

The current "big bang inflation" theories all want to pretend, in other words, that the space between planets and stars is expanding...while the space between atoms in planets (e.g. our Earth) is remaining the same size (otherwise the Earth would be growing).

Which is to say, the theory is hooey.

[VadeRetro]

Then wouldn't each body of mass be "seen" to grow as already formed planets, suns, etc?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#SS

[MineralMan]

""It's turtles all the way down."
And they're all swaying back and forth going, "Heyyyyy, whoahhhh"."

Yes, but the scale of the universe is so large that we aren't aware of the swaying. It can only be measured by scientists.

As you may know, the earth wobbles a bit in its rotation. We don't notice it, but that turtle that holds the earth up really needs to get it's feet planted better on the turtle that holds the solar system up.

It's a precarious sort of situation. Who knows? Tomorrow, or in a few billion years, Earth's turtle could slip or something, and it'll all be gone. But, that's what makes life interesting. You just never know.

[Netheron]

The section that you clipped on non-zero rest mass photons isn't really pertinent to the discussion. John Baez is talking about something entirely different.

Once you get past Sophmore Physics, you always mean 'rest mass' when talking about mass, unless you are in a specifically non-relativistic context. (Where it doesn't matter which one you use.) Physicists just call it 'mass', since they can all do Special Relativity in their sleep and they get tired of saying 'rest' all the time. People only talk about mass increasing as you go faster as a way of introducing Special Relativity to students. After that, it's all 'mass' means 'rest mass' from there on out.

[Southack]

"Behold, the "Festival of the Attention-Seeking Troll".... "

Just a friendly warning about ad hominems.

Stick to the debate if you can, leave if you can't.

[PUGACHEV]

I wonder if the size of a marble is some sort of threshold: a budding universe growing beyond size that inflates hugely, as ours did, whereas one that doesn't grow larger reabsorbs or disappears into the quantum soup or whatever.

[AntiGuv]

Well, I don't really see much point in debating what the de Sitter model did or didn't say. So, here are the answers to your questions:

(a) gravity
(b) dark energy
(c) they weren't

I hope you're happy now.

[gomaaa]

Photons (i.e.light) do have mass. There is an experiment setup that you could buy that looks like a light bulb with a sort of windmill inside of it, that proves it. I'll see if I can find a link.

I don't think photons have mass, as such, but they do have momentum. Please check me on this, as it's been a while since I've had to use these formulas. Einstein's special relativity equation looks like:

E^2 = p^2 * c^2 + m^2 * c^4

where E=energy, p=momentum, m=mass and c= the speed of light. If you have a motionless particle, set p = 0 and you get

E = m * c^2

which everybody knows. If you have a massless particle, like a photon, set m = 0 and you get:

E = p * c

So photons have mass and can do things like run the little fan inside the light bulb (just like air molecules hitting it would transfer momentum and turn the fan, so do photons), if you ever find the link. I couldn't find it either, but I think I know what you're talking about.

PS. Does anyone know if I can use LaTeX equations when posting to FR? Heck, I'll give it a try:

$E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4$