alpha2cen
-
Posts
1100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by alpha2cen
-
-
(3) Which precise definition of space is generrally used when trying to explain the expansion of space, especially expansion greater than light speed? I realize that many physicists have gone back and forth about what space actually is.
These are the calculated results from the expansion models.
1) At the beginning from the some area, i.e., Inflation and expansion.
a) Constant accelerated expansion
b) Constant speed expansion
2) At the beginning from the one point
a) Constant accelerated expansion
b) Constant speed expansion
Calculated expansion style; from the redshift data and the space expansion model
http://blogs.scienceforums.net/alpha2cen/2012/12/24/space-expansion-model-universe-expansion-graph/
The steady state Universe model was also calculated.
Decelerated speed expansion cases are not calculated yet.
1 -
From the above equations.
[latex]\frac{I_{c}}{I_{t}}=\frac{E_{c}/tA}{E_{t}/tA}\cong \frac{h/\lambda _{c}}{h/\lambda _{t}}[/latex]
This equation is modified.
The model is in the below Figure.
0 -
From the next figure model we can claculate Redshift value.
In this model, we assume that the cause of Redshift is the interactions between the light and surround something.
So, we can apply modified Beer Lambert model.
[latex]Z=\frac{\lambda _{c}}{\lambda _{t}}-1[/latex]
Beer Lambert law
[latex]\frac{I_{c}}{I_{t}}=e^{-kd}[/latex]
[latex]\frac{I_{c}}{I_{t}}=\frac{E_{c}/tA}{E_{t}/tA} \cong \frac{h/\lambda _{c}}{h/\lambda _{t}}=\frac{\lambda _{t}}{\lambda _{c}}[/latex]
[latex]\frac{\lambda _{c}}{\lambda _{t}}=e^{kd}[/latex]
[latex]Z=e^{kd}-1[/latex]
From known data Z=1, L=6
k=0.09
So
[latex]Z=e^{0.09d}-1[/latex]where d=13.75-L
d; distance(Billion year)
More detail picture presenting below Z=2.
2 -
This is a calculated result from the well known data.
Reference
http://astro.wku.edu/astr106/Hubble_intro.html
etc..
0 -
This is a more detailed space expansion model.
0 -
So, the black one is the piston. Since it is weighted, the pressure produced is lost in pushing the piston upwards?
No, the pressure is always constant. The piston has no friction. The initial pressure is the sum of mg/A and atmospheric pressure.
where, m is mass, g is gravitational constant and A is area. There is no reason to be changed the pressure during the process.
0 -
100g of CO are contained in a weighted piston-cylinder device. Initially, the CO is at 1000kPa and 200oC. It is then heated until 500oC. Determine the final volume of the CO treating it as an ideal gas.
This is what my lecturer gave in his solution:
V2=(mRT2)/P=(0.1kg*0.2968kPa.m3/kg.K*(500+273)K)/1000kPA
My question is: why is the original pressure (1000kPa) been used instead of the final pressure?
Thanks for your help.
0 -
The labelling "photon" in your first diagram is disturbing. IIRC the standard model does not state that the photon changed dimension over time.
But, after Inflation the model fits well.
And, other expansion cases are in this Figure.
0 -
To obtain correct expansion diagram, more exact Doppler effect estimation is needed.
0 -
From well known Redshift formula, we can draw a diagram about the Universe expansion.
Other factors, i.e., Doppler effect, etc. are ignored.
0 -
Yes. There are some fundamental differences between the way "movement" from universal expansion and normal movement work. The biggest one is that expanding space doesn't have to obey the universal speed limit of lightspeed. If all movement was somehow from space expanding and contracting between masses, faster than light travel wouldn't be impossible.
Redshift value change is too high. How to explain the dropping of the value from 11.9 to 5?
0 -
Good evening!
Could anybody inform me in which circumstances the reynolds number takes low or negative values?
Thank you!
Tiny particles movement. But, is it in the range of the continuity fluid dynamics?
0 -
According to Classical QM, wave-functions spread out through (proper) time.
Do the Relativistic wave-functions, of photons, also spread out through time? Given billions of years, the wave-function of a stationary electron (say) could possibly spread out to many times its original size; if photons did something similar, then that diffusion phenomenon would resemble cosmic redshift.
Or, does the fact that photons experience zero proper time (between any two events on their world-lines) imply that photons are "frozen in time", "frozen koosh-balls of EM field" that simply propagate through space in a static, non-spreading, configuration?
If you designed a particle-beam-based communication system; would those particles "red-shift" as they crossed the cosmos, arriving at distant galaxies spread out over many times their original wave-function size? And, would that be due to GR-based cosmic expansion redshift; or Classical QM-based spreading of wave-functions; or both?
Redshift value depends on many factors. Doppler redshift is one of them.
0 -
How do you "build" that?
Was it built right after Big Bang?
If that kind of system did not exist, huge amount of micro Black Hole might be generated.
Such system makes the energy density per unit volume not be high?
Photon carrier concept can easily explain many things.
1) Low temperature(below 10K)radiation.
2) Particle wave duality.
3) Constancy of the speed of light.
4) Easily explaining the energy transfer between the light to molecules.
(light to molecules, light to electron orbit, light to nucleus)
5) Micro Black Hole rarity.
etc..
0 -
The something, which makes the light travel to the speed of light?
0 -
A photon is the carrier particle for the Electromagnetic force. Quite the same as Gluons are the carrier particles for the Strong Nuclear force.
In the extremely early universe, all 4 universal forces (Gravity, Strong/Weak Nuclear, and Electromagnetic) were unified into 1 signle force. As symmetry breaking occured (within the first fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second after the Big Bang), one by one the forces split off from each other, resulting in 4 distinct forces to govern the physical universe.
It is widely accepted that Gravity was the first the separate, followed by the Strong Nuclear, then the Weak Nuclear forces. It would have been the latter symmetry breaking that created the EMF, and hence the propogation of photons.
Note that this was prior to the existence of any baryonic matter (i.e protons, neutrons..). As for the the first 'atoms', it wasnt until around 380,000 years AFTER the Big Bang, when the temperature of the Universe has cooled to around 4,000K that it was cool enough for atoms to be able to condense. These newly forms atoms were then able to snare the rogue electrons flying around the cosmos, and create the first Hydrogen atoms. With the fog of electrons now thinner, photons were able to travel alot further before being absorbed, and hence the Universe ceased to be opaque for the first time since the beginning.
And as for the first generation of stars would have been a considerable amount of time even after this; the newly formed atoms would need to condense into large enough clumps to initiate the gradual building of material necessary to make a star. It would need to have a large enough size/mass the ignite, and commence fusion....and considering the temperature of the Universe was around 4,000K when the Universe was 380,000 years old, which is comparable to the surface temperature of a star, again it would have been a considerable amount of time after this before the first stars ignited.
So in short, no, the first photons did not appear along with the first generation of stars.,
Short length visible waves did not appear. But, long length electromagnetic waves appeared.
0 -
How do we calculate the age of dim star? Are there no scenario from the beginning to the present?
0 -
Wrong, shortly after the Big Bang event the expansion was extremely high and far away objects was receding with many multiples of the speed of light.
In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 1026 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 1078.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state.
Red shift value did not appear in the past post.
Without any acceleration, the expansion or contraction speed can not approach to the certain value.
Always initial velocity is zero.
0 -
These are redshift apparatuses.
Two experiment apparatus have the same result?
Upside apparatus is a Doppler shift experiment apparatus.
Downside one is a space expansion apparatus.
0 -
I have found a reference material about early Universe star. But there is no coment about red shift.
http://phys.org/news/2012-12-stars-universe-million-years.html
How do they calculate the age of early Universe ?
0 -
Near Inflation, the receding speed of the faraway galaxy is not so high.
0-------------->speed increasing
So, if we see the faraway super cluster, we can see slow moving dim supercluster.
Is it really? Or, it is a nonsense?http://blogs.scienceforums.net/alpha2cen/files/2011/02/core-calcu.jpg
http://blogs.scienceforums.net/alpha2cen/files/2011/02/Core_universe.jpg
0 -
Space volume expansion in non-bounded regions: this includes intergalactic regions.
The details are like this.
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70266-redshift/#entry717865
Think it again.
Which one is correct among them?
0 -
What is the cause of cosmological redshift?
There are three cases in the Figure.
Think about it again.
0 -
The expansion of the universe is unrelated to dark energy or dark matter and cannot be explained as a repulsive force, because in general relativity neither gravitation nor space expansions are described by any force.
The origin of the expansion is on the Big Bang, but there is not universally accepted theory about what happened at the first instant of time. Our confirmed theories cease to work much before.
Space volume expansion, or intergalactic distance increment ?
0
Special Relativity Mass Calculator
in Relativity
Posted
How about using more precision compiler? JavaScript call--->external compiled program with more precision compiler. Is it possible?