Do We Live In A "Stop And Go" Universe?

spaceref.com ^ | 27 May 03 | staff

[RightWhale]

As soon as we figure out what is doing this, we should figure out a way to stop it, and do a few other things so the universe doesn't burn out just as we are getting started.

[randog]

"Right now, the universe is speeding up...

I thought I felt something the other day.

[RightWhale]

Somewhere around the age of 30 this phenomenon is noticed by many.

[Dr. Frank fan]

"We've been hoping to see this effect of slowing in the distant past.

That's weird, I just think this is an odd attitude for a scientist to have, 'hoping' to see one set of stats or another. Perhaps there are good reasons for this 'hoping' and the article just doesn't explain them.

[demlosers]

Astronomers discovered seven decades ago that the universe is expanding, with galaxies rushing away from each other in all directions. Physics suggested that the expansion, which began with the Big Bang, should slow down over time due to the combined gravitational pull from all matter in the cosmos.

I've read recently that the expansion will not collapse on itself -- lasting forever.

It's a "Go" Universe!

[RightWhale]

There is a paper and a nifty image with the source article.

[JoeSixPack1]

Do We Live In A "Stop And Go" Universe?

Yes we do. Even our computers work on a super expanded explanation of "On or Off" to make computations and calculations in binary. Or at least that's how we have the ability to control computations, even if they are completed at the micron level.

[Gary Boldwater]

*PINK MATTER ALERT*

Well if it did slow down (perhaps even go in reverse) and then sped up, what does this say about the cosmological red shift assumption?
Wouldn't it be simpler to explain this all as the universe not really expanding (though it is moving about), but rather that the speed of light may have changed with time and location. It's a big assumption that the intrinsic impedance of space is the same all over for all time.
The cosmic background radiation may just be light that is absorbed by the matter (and there's lots of it) between the heavenly bodies and reradiated as heat. It may not be the left over light from the big bang doppler shifted.

[longshadow]

dark energy/accelerating expansion ping

[PatrickHenry]

Cosmology ping.

[This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[Saturnalia]

I for one would be interested in knowing what makes a universe stop.
Have the astronomers interviewed the Supremes lately?

[RightWhale]

We will find out what is causing this expansion and stop it. We will also find out what makes the stars burn out so quickly. We will make the universe last a million times longer than it would if left to nature, and then we will extend that a million times more.

-J D Bernal

[kuma]

Ah! It must be God expanding hell since the fall of man and even more so rapidly after the 60's.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...a nifty image with the source article.

Nifty, yes. But I have a question. If this image is an accurate representation of our Universe, shouldn't it be possible to aim a telescope at vast expanses of sky that have nothing? Literally away from the apparent source of the Big Bang? And what forces made this Big Bang so...directional?

[RightWhale]

The diagram is dimensional, the time axis is horizontal, the vertical kind of spatial, all spatial dimensions in one. As far as the Big Bang being in a particular direction, it is actually in all directions. Any direction you look, if you see deeply enough, you will see the Big Bang. It's like we are in the middle, looking through the other end of the telescope.

[gcruse]

so the universe doesn't burn out just as we are getting started.

"The universe is going to collapse in a few billion years."
"Oh, my gawd!  It isn't fair.  What are we going to do?"
"What are you talking about?  A billion years is a long time."
"A billion?  Oh, man, I thought you said a million!"

[AndrewC]

Well, what do you know! We don't know.

That means lots of territory to have fun in.

[The Shootist]

Well if it did slow down (perhaps even go in reverse) and then sped up, what does this say about the cosmological red shift assumption?

The Red Shift is not an assumption.

What you are discribing has nothing to do with the "speed" of light, it has to do with its frequency, or wave-length, as seen by a distant observer. When a distant object is moving towards the observer at a significant percentage of C its wavelength is compressed, or shortened, appearing blue to the observer. As a distant object moves away from the observer its wavelength is expanded, or lenghtened, appearing red.

This shifting towards red or blue would happen regardless of the measured speed of C. Since E=MC2 works well enough (to as many decimal points as we can measure) that Hiroshima was vaporized, I respecfully suggest that Einstein was closer to the correct answer than any fanciful idea that C is not a constant in a vacuum.

Remember Occam's Razor: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

[AndrewC]

They also have a nice animation. Ragged start to the universe, and at the end the universe just stops and fades out. Must be a French director.

Big Bang:the movie

[JusPasenThru]

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make for a long time....