Jump to content
Bmpbmp1975

Dead galaxy questions

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also this article implies the actual cosmo constant has changed also which confuses some of the answers here 

73.8 ± 1.1 km/s/Mpc according to this new measurement.

How much does that increase  Lambda (cosmo-constant) looks like it was by 5

You have completely changed the subject from the fine structure constant to, now, the Hubble constant (which, oddly, is not a constant).

The measured value of the Hubble constant has changed quite a lot since the initial value as more accurate ways of measuring it are found. This is common for many scientific measurements. Then about 20 years ago it was found that the value changes over time because the rate of expansion is accelerating.

This has nothing to do the topic of this thread (a galaxy that stopped making new stars), nothing to do with the fine structure constant (which also has nothing to do with that galaxy), nothing to do with vacuum decay, etc. And the link you provided says nothing about this, anyway.

You are just throwing irrelevant random facts into the thread for no apparent purpose.

2 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

then this article below talks about the universe colder a very low levels which what was said above will not happen anytime soon 

I'm not sure what that sentence means but:

1. This is another completely unrelated topic

2. It has been known for a long time that there are (small) variations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. These are tiny, millionths of a degree, but they can tell us a lot about the early universe.

3. No one said anything about this "above" because it is the first time the CMB has been mentioned. 

4. This has got nothing to do with something happening "anytime soon" because we are looking at things that happened 13.8 billion years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have completely changed the subject from the fine structure constant to, now, the Hubble constant (which, oddly, is not a constant).

The measured value of the Hubble constant has changed quite a lot since the initial value as more accurate ways of measuring it are found. This is common for many scientific measurements. Then about 20 years ago it was found that the value changes over time because the rate of expansion is accelerating.

This has nothing to do the topic of this thread (a galaxy that stopped making new stars), nothing to do with the fine structure constant (which also has nothing to do with that galaxy), nothing to do with vacuum decay, etc. And the link you provided says nothing about this, anyway.

You are just throwing irrelevant random facts into the thread for no apparent purpose.

I'm not sure what that sentence means but:

1. This is another completely unrelated topic

2. It has been known for a long time that there are (small) variations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. These are tiny, millionths of a degree, but they can tell us a lot about the early universe.

3. No one said anything about this "above" because it is the first time the CMB has been mentioned. 

4. This has got nothing to do with something happening "anytime soon" because we are looking at things that happened 13.8 billion years ago.

 

Sorry some answer spoke about Lambda constants. And the article I present shows it has changed to possibly a new vacuum state?

also the cmb part falls into the replies I got  about if universe falls under a certain temp then vacuum collapse is possible. 

also what we see billions of years ago is reaching us now so if for example the temp has changed and we see it that means it is hitting us now.

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

And the article I present shows it has changed to possibly a new vacuum state?

Your link doesn't go to an article about the Hubble constant or lambda. So you might want to post the correct link.

But there is no evidence it has changed. If the universe had changed to a new (false) vacuum state then the universe would not exist and we would not be having the conversation.

16 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also the cmb part falls into the replies I got  about if universe falls under a certain temp then vacuum collapse is possible. 

And that reply pointed out that it happened 13.8 billion years ago and is not going to happen again.

Quote

also what we see billions of years ago is reaching us now so if for example the temp has changed and we see it that means it is hitting us now.

All that is "hitting us" now is microwave radiation from 13.8 billion years ago.

(You have had all of this explained to you multiple times on another forum, but it seems you haven't learned anything.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Your link doesn't go to an article about the Hubble constant or lambda. So you might want to post the correct link.

sorry wrong link was posted

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20200210a/full/?fbclid=IwAR0Tu2BQnV6jBMs5F5j_UzeLXEMkBruEa4P9JleiCOOS5Txle0RpinjAIBk&

But there is no evidence it has changed. If the universe had changed to a new (false) vacuum state then the universe would not exist and we would not be having the conversation.

And that reply pointed out that it happened 13.8 billion years ago and is not going to happen again.

All that is "hitting us" now is microwave radiation from 13.8 billion years ago.

(You have had all of this explained to you multiple times on another forum, but it seems you haven't learned anything

Just now, Bmpbmp1975 said:
8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Your link doesn't go to an article about the Hubble constant or lambda. So you might want to post the correct link.

sorry wrong link was posted

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20200210a/full/?fbclid=IwAR0Tu2BQnV6jBMs5F5j_UzeLXEMkBruEa4P9JleiCOOS5Txle0RpinjAIBk&

But there is no evidence it has changed. If the universe had changed to a new (false) vacuum state then the universe would not exist and we would not be having the conversation.

And that reply pointed out that it happened 13.8 billion years ago and is not going to happen again.

All that is "hitting us" now is microwave radiation from 13.8 billion years ago.

(You have had all of this explained to you multiple times on another forum, but it seems you haven't learned anything

Sorry wrong link posted 

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20200210a/full/?fbclid=IwAR0Tu2BQnV6jBMs5F5j_UzeLXEMkBruEa4P9JleiCOOS5Txle0RpinjAIBk&

and the second article about the supervoid in the other article article that works show that the kev of the universe is colder than thought so this adds to the collapse theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Sorry wrong link posted 

OK. This article is about how different ways of measuring the Hubble constant (the current rate of expansion) give slightly different results. This is intriguing and may tell us that our models of the universe are not quite right. But it certainly doesn't imply any recent or sudden changes.

21 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

and the second article about the supervoid in the other article article that works show that the kev of the universe is colder than thought so this adds to the collapse theory.

It doesn't say any such thing. It says there is a small area of the sky where the radiation is fractionally cooler than elsewhere. It then discusses several possible xplanations.

None of this has anything to do with vacuum decay (or collapse, whatever that means).

You are just making stuff up that has no connection with the contents of the articles. I'm not sure you are even reading them. Are you just posting random links?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. This article is about how different ways of measuring the Hubble constant (the current rate of expansion) give slightly different results. This is intriguing and may tell us that our models of the universe are not quite right. But it certainly doesn't imply any recent or sudden changes.

It doesn't say any such thing. It says there is a small area of the sky where the radiation is fractionally cooler than elsewhere. It then discusses several possible xplanations.

None of this has anything to do with vacuum decay (or collapse, whatever that means).

You are just making stuff up that has no connection with the contents of the articles. I'm not sure you are even reading them. Are you just posting random links?

No i am reading them and that is my understanding that’s why I am here hoping to learn to understand 

 

also the numbers do not say fractionally but big differences in the temp to the point of under 0

àlso still confused on the things reaching us now but not reaching us for billions of years 

 

also I may not fully understand but understand enough

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also the numbers do not say fractionally but big differences in the temp to the point of under 0

It says: "the so-called “CMB cold spot” is about 70 μK colder than the average CMB temperature"

That is 70 millionths of a degree colder. Or 0.00007 degrees colder. 

4 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

àlso still confused on the things reaching us now but not reaching us for billions of years 

Light (microwaves) is reaching us now. It has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us.

Maybe this will help: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It says: "the so-called “CMB cold spot” is about 70 μK colder than the average CMB temperature"

That is 70 millionths of a degree colder. Or 0.00007 degrees colder. 

Light (microwaves) is reaching us now. It has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us.

Maybe this will help: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Yes but there is a part that says 150 uk colder and also I read the wiki before 

also this supervoid is below 0 which  can cause collapse which may be on its way here now?

from what I have been told anything reaching us now regardless is reaching us now does not matter what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Yes but there is a part that says 150 uk colder

So that is 150 millionths of a degree colder. Or 0.00015 degrees colder. 

1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also this supervoid is below 0 which  can cause collapse which may be on its way here now?

No it doesn't. It says nothing like that. Stop making things up.

2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

from what I have been told anything reaching us now regardless is reaching us now

Well obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Strange said:

So that is 150 millionths of a degree colder. Or 0.00015 degrees colder. 

No it doesn't. It says nothing like that. Stop making things up.

Well obviously.

Yes so the coldness in universe change is what we are in now here because it has reached us no?

The supervoid is now at under 0 kev 

and also the article does not mention collapse but by the temp we are at a collapse state

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Yes so the coldness in universe change is what we are in now here because it has reached us no?

The universe has cooled from about 4000 degrees to 2.7 degrees over the last 13.8 billion years. That is still continuing. There are no new or sudden changes.

14 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

The supervoid is now at under 0 kev 

It is not. It is a few millionths of a degree below 2.73 degrees. 

You are suggesting it is below absolute zero, which is impossible. And, obviously, it doesn't say that in the article.

14 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

and also the article does not mention collapse but by the temp we are at a collapse state

Nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

The universe has cooled from about 4000 degrees to 2.7 degrees over the last 13.8 billion years. That is still continuing. There are no new or sudden changes.

It is not. It is a few millionths of a degree below 2.73 degrees. 

You are suggesting it is below absolute zero, which is impossible. And, obviously, it doesn't say that in the article.

Nonsense.

I understand but the cold spot is under 0

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Yes so the coldness in universe change is what we are in now here because it has reached us no?

The supervoid is now at under 0 kev 

and also the article does not mention collapse but by the temp we are at a collapse state

When you claim something it may be helpful to put the piece of text which  you interpret, because it seems that that is a major issue here.
So if you say 'the supervoid is now at under 0 kev', can you please show where you found it (so the reference) and the specific text?

The same thing for these collapse statements, please provide the piece of text which makes you think these things, then people can help you in understanding those specific pieces better and help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I understand but the cold spot is under 0

Under 0 what? Feet?

And you may "understand" that but you certainly didn't read it in that article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Sorry meant under 0 kev in universe cooling 

Not possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not possible. 

So please explain to me why it’s not possible and what this cold void means, it’s the only one that exits in any part of the universe 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

please explain to me why it’s not possible

While we can get close, getting to absolute zero (0K) is not possible, doubly-so when talking about below zero. It's a bit like asking what's north of the northpole.

https://www.sciencealert.com/after-a-century-of-debate-cooling-to-absolute-zero-has-been-declared-mathematically-impossible

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have this supervoid that’s the only one that exists right now expanding bigger and bigger and is cooling colder and colder and it is extremely close to zero and your telling me it’s not possible that this affects us in our lifetime. I am curious to understand your comment

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Sorry meant under 0 kev in universe cooling 

That sentence doesn't make any sense.

The unit of temperature they are are using is K (kelvin) not kev

0 K is absolute zero.

It is impossible to have a temperature of absolute zero or 0K, therefore it is impossible for anything to be under 0K.

23 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

So please explain to me why it’s not possible and what this cold void means, it’s the only one that exits in any part of the universe 

It is not the only one. The article talks about other voids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Yes so the coldness in universe change is what we are in now here because it has reached us no?

The supervoid is now at under 0 kev 

Which link says this? Provide a quote of the relevant passage. It's not fair to make others chase this stuff down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

your telling me it’s not possible that this affects us in our lifetime

Nope. Not telling you that at all. My apologies that you're so unmolested by enlightenment

Also, *you're

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

So we have this supervoid that’s the only one that exists right now expanding bigger and bigger and is cooling colder and colder and it is extremely close to zero and your telling me it’s not possible that this affects us in our lifetime. I am curious to understand your comment

Almost everything you say here is incorrect. Stop making stuff up.

1. A supervoid is one possible explanation for the cold spot, but that is not certain.

2. It is not the only one that exists. For example, the article says "Mackenzie’s team found three voids out to a distance of three billion light-years, and a possible fourth void beyond that"

3. There is nothing in the article that says the void is getting bigger and bigger.

4. There is nothing in the article that says it is cooling (any more than the rest of the universe)

5. It is, for all practical purposes, no closer to absolute zero than the rest of the universe. (If the rest of the universe is 2.7K then the void is 2.69993K. Pretty much the same.)

6. One of the possible voids that may have been seen is three billion light years away. So nothing is going to affect us in our lifetime. Even if there were something that could affect us. Which there isn't.

 

Edited by Strange
Specific temperature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nope. Not telling you that at all. My apologies that you're so unmolested by enlightenment

Also, *you're

What do you mean? So it can happen in our lifetime?

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which link says this? Provide a quote of the relevant passage. It's not fair to make others chase this stuff down.

It’s basically the current understanding 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

What do you mean? So it can happen in our lifetime?

I think I’d have better luck picking up a turd by the clean end than helping you avoid these continued reading comprehension challenges you display 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.