Jump to content
Bmpbmp1975

Expansion different in different directions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This seems like a new find that the universe is not expanding at the same speed depending on direction.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/universe-s-expansion-may-not-be-the-same-in-all-directions.html
 

how does this affect what we currently know with the age of the universe, the end of the universe and anything else we know or we thought we knew. 
 

i have included the actual paper if anyone is interested

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.03305.pdf

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

This seems like a new find that the universe is not expanding at the same speed depending on direction.

"May not be"

4 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

how does this affect what we currently know with the age of the universe, the end of the universe and anything else we know or we thought we knew. 

It is unlikely to make much difference as I would assume the differences are very small (otherwise it would have been seen already). Possibly smaller than the error bars on the estimate of the age of the universe. We will have to wait and see when the paper is published (there didn't seem to be any numbers in that article).

And then we will have to wait and see if their results are confirmed by others.

And then wait to see what modifications (if any) this implies for current models.

Share this post


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

"May not be"

It is unlikely to make much difference as I would assume the differences are very small (otherwise it would have been seen already). Possibly smaller than the error bars on the estimate of the age of the universe. We will have to wait and see when the paper is published (there didn't seem to be any numbers in that article).

And then we will have to wait and see if their results are confirmed by others.

And then wait to see what modifications (if any) this implies for current models.

The paper was released I had included it above 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.03305.pdf

Share this post


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

The paper was released I had included it above 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.03305.pdf

Oops. Sorry, I missed that. I'll take a look and see if I can understand any of it!

[That "whooshing" noise is the paper going completely over my head. Hopefully, someone else can comment.]

Share this post


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

Oops. Sorry, I missed that. I'll take a look and see if I can understand any of it!

[That "whooshing" noise is the paper going completely over my head. Hopefully, someone else can comment.]

And what did you mean by maybe, it was a NASA press release so it must be right?

Share this post


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

And what did you mean by maybe, it was a NASA press release so it must be right?

I was just highlighting that the results are not definite (nothing in science is) and will need to be confirmed. From the article (bold added):

Quote

“Based on our cluster observations we may have found differences in how fast the universe is expanding depending on which way we looked,” said co-author Gerrit Schellenberger of the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian (CfA) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

"may"

Share this post


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

And what did you mean by maybe, it was a NASA press release so it must be right?

The press release is probably "right" in the sense that it correctly summarises the research work done. That does not mean that the results of that research are correct.

Share this post


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

The press release is probably "right" in the sense that it correctly summarises the research work done. That does not mean that the results of that research are correct.

Ah ok 

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I heard it... 😉

Not sure what your meaning but I’ll for for someone who understands the paper to reply as strange said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a big deal.
I would expect anisotropy out to a certain distance, as expansion is mitigated by gravity and flows ( of galactic cluster masses ) on smaller scales.
True isotropy will only become apparent at extremely large distances, and may only approach it at the limit.

From the paper...

"If no biases are identified as the reason behind the anisotropies we observe and other probes seem to
consistently agree, then the explanation might indeed be of cosmological origin. Such examples would
be an anisotropic
dark energy nature leading to different expansion rates for different directions in the
late Universe, coherent bulk flow motions up
to certain cosmic scales affecting the cosmological
redshift measurements
etc."

 

 

Good to see that you CAN understand scientific literature, Bmpbmp75.
Maybe now you'll stop 'foolin' and become a productive member of the forum ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MigL said:

Good to see that you CAN understand scientific literature, Bmpbmp75.
Maybe now you'll stop 'foolin' and become a productive member of the forum ?

I am trying my best, thank you 

but I do not understand the numbers and values in the paper. 

How much  do these numbers and values change our current understanding in the age of the universe , the size of the universe and the lifetime of the universe before its demise?

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We all hear the whoosh, if we're honest; the whooping is a different question.

I really do not understand why you keep bringing up woosh . I asked Strange what he meant by may not be and you starting with the whoosh comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We seem to have Gotten off topic I apologize.

how much  do these numbers and values change our current understanding in the age of the universe , the size of the universe and the lifetime of the universe before its demise?

the article mentions it a little

“One of the pillars of cosmology – the study of the history and fate of the entire universe – is that the universe is ‘isotropic,’ meaning the same in all directions,” said Konstantinos Migkas of the University of Bonn in Germany, who led the new study. “Our work shows there may be cracks in that pillar.”

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

I am not supposed to moderate in this thread, but FFS Dimreeper, get a grip. I have moved your (drunken?) ramblings to Trash. Drop it. 

 
7 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

how much  do these numbers and values change our current understanding in the age of the universe , the size of the universe and the lifetime of the universe before its demise?

the article mentions it a little

“One of the pillars of cosmology – the study of the history and fate of the entire universe – is that the universe is ‘isotropic,’ meaning the same in all directions,” said Konstantinos Migkas of the University of Bonn in Germany, who led the new study. “Our work shows there may be cracks in that pillar.”

I don't think it is possible to answer at the moment. It isn't clear (to me) what the scale of these deviations are, even from skimming the paper. 

I doubt it is going to be a major change in our view of the universe, but it might provide some subtle details about how it has evolved. But only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Strange said:
!

Moderator Note

I am not supposed to moderate in this thread, but FFS Dimreeper, get a grip. I have moved your (drunken?) ramblings to Trash. Drop it. 

 

I don't think it is possible to answer at the moment. It isn't clear (to me) what the scale of these deviations are, even from skimming the paper. 

I doubt it is going to be a major change in our view of the universe, but it might provide some subtle details about how it has evolved. But only time will tell.

I guess is this something that will not affect us in our lifetimes?

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

I guess is this something that will not affect us in our lifetimes?

When you get to my years and beyond you will have seen them all come and go.

I have a large barrel of salt which I take a shovel from to add to every new 'discovery' in cosmology.

I have seen the 'subject' turned on its head at least 5 times in my time.

Share this post


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

When you get to my years and beyond you will have seen them all come and go.

I have a large barrel of salt which I take a shovel from to add to every new 'discovery' in cosmology.

I have seen the 'subject' turned on its head at least 5 times in my time.

Don’t understand 

Share this post


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

Don’t understand 

In what way?

Share this post


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

In what way?

So your saying it could affect us in our lifetime 

Share this post


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

I guess is this something that will not affect us in our lifetimes?

How can it? They are making measurements of (tiny) differences in expansion rates over millions of light years (and therefore millions of years n the past).

Stop trying to bring everything back to "will it affect us in our lifetime". When talking about cosmology, the answer is ALWAYS "no".

Share this post


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

How can it? They are making measurements of (tiny) differences in expansion rates over millions of light years (and therefore millions of years n the past).

Stop trying to bring everything back to "will it affect us in our lifetime". When talking about cosmology, the answer is ALWAYS "no".

So I didn’t realize the measurements were so tiny I did not understand the values in the paper. 

Share this post


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

So I didn’t realize the measurements were so tiny I did not understand the values in the paper. 

I don't either. But I assume that if they were not tiny, this would have been spotted long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't either. But I assume that if they were not tiny, this would have been spotted long ago.

I mean depending on the values we use the rate of expansion to calculate the age of the universe how much does this change it.

also they predict the possible fate of the universe in about 5 billion years so how much shorter is that time frame with the new values is more my questions 

cause isn’t this the first time testing this with a new testing process

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This paper isn't conclusive enough to worry about. Dipole anistropy is something that all telescopes encounter and the common factor is our own motion.

 Planck encountered this in its first dataset and had to calibrate our local influences to correct the dipole anistropy. This looks to be something that Chandra must also look into.

 The paper gives several possibilities one of those is the movement of our local group as being a viable influence. This is the one I would think is the most likely.

I will examine the paper in more detail but on first reading I didn't see anything conclusive or significant enough to require deviating from the Homogeneous and isotropic expansion (cosmological principle).

The Z ranges I saw appear mostly local group.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

This paper isn't conclusive enough to worry about. Dipole anistropy is something that all telescopes encounter and the common factor is our own motion.

 Planck encountered this in its first dataset and had to calibrate our local influences to correct the dipole anistropy. This looks to be something that Chandra must also look into.

 The paper gives several possibilities one of those is the movement of our local group as being a viable influence. This is the one I would think is the most likely.

I will examine the paper in more detail but on first reading I didn't see anything conclusive or significant enough to require deviating from the Homogeneous and isotropic expansion (cosmological principle).

The Z ranges I saw appear mostly local group.

What do you mean conclusive enough to worry about, can this widely affect our understanding of age and fate of the universe?

 

also this a is anew testing process is it not using existing telescopes 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

I mean depending on the values we use the rate of expansion to calculate the age of the universe how much does this change it.

I doubt it changes it at all.

1. I assume the variations are small. Quite possibly smaller than the error bounds on the age.

2. If the value is larger in one direction and smaller in another, then they probably average out

31 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also they predict the possible fate of the universe in about 5 billion years

1. They don't say anything about the fate of the universe.

2. The universe is going to be around for a lot more than 5 billion years.

3. This won't make any difference to that.

 

Share this post


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

I doubt it changes it at all.

1. I assume the variations are small. Quite possibly smaller than the error bounds on the age.

2. If the value is larger in one direction and smaller in another, then they probably average out

1. They don't say anything about the fate of the universe.

2. The universe is going to be around for a lot more than 5 billion years.

3. This won't make any difference to that.

 

I had meant from this paragraph about fate 

“One of the pillars of cosmology – the study of the history and fate of the entire universe – is that the universe is ‘isotropic,’ meaning the same in all directions,” said Konstantinos Migkas of the University of Bonn in Germany, who led the new study. “Our work shows there may be cracks in that pillar.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.