An Apple in Your Hand Warps Spacetime. So Does Every Other Object in Our Infinite Universe

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
An apple in your hand effects all of eternity. Whether you eat it, throw it at a wall, or throw it in the trash, your choice is a manifestation of relative infinity that impacts all things. Think "butterfly effect" on steroids. You can never possibly know the impact of any choice you make because the impact is *literally* unending. Take an apple 5 lightyears away... 50 lightyears away... 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 ^999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,984,812,999,999,999,999,999 lightyears away... Whatever happens to that apple, whether subjected to the whims of choice, laws of physics, or both, has an infinite impact across all of space and time. The further away from the observer's relative sphere of observation/influence the apple is, the less measureable the impact is on said observer's understanding/calculations of reality, BECAUSE THE OBSERVER DOES NOT HAVE INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS- *BUT IT ALL ADDS UP*. An object beyond our horizon of sight that contributes 1*10^-999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999% of the observed impact of dark matter and dark energy does not contribute 100% of the impact of dark matter and dark energy, *hence the fact that our calculations do not appear to demonstrate a universe of infinite gravity* because ALL OBJECTS EXERT A UNIQUE FORCE OF GRAVITY (WHICH IS NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS THAN THE WARPING OF SPACETIME) RELATIVE TO OUR OBSERVATION. Am I being extreme? Absolutely. I keep thinking one of these days you all will get the extremely simple and frankly indisputable point I am making: there is only one truth. The Universe is Infinite.
 
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
555
An apple in your hand effects all of eternity. Whether you eat it, throw it at a wall, or throw it in the trash, your choice is a manifestation of relative infinity that impacts all things. Think "butterfly effect" on steroids. You can never possibly know the impact of any choice you make because the impact is *literally* unending. Take an apple 5 lightyears away... 50 lightyears away... 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 ^999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,984,812,999,999,999,999,999 lightyears away... Whatever happens to that apple, whether subjected to the whims of choice, laws of physics, or both, has an infinite impact across all of space and time. The further away from the observer's relative sphere of observation/influence the apple is, the less measureable the impact is on said observer's understanding/calculations of reality, BECAUSE THE OBSERVER DOES NOT HAVE INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS- *BUT IT ALL ADDS UP*. An object beyond our horizon of sight that contributes 1*10^-999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999% of the observed impact of dark matter and dark energy does not contribute 100% of the impact of dark matter and dark energy, *hence the fact that our calculations do not appear to demonstrate a universe of infinite gravity* because ALL OBJECTS EXERT A UNIQUE FORCE OF GRAVITY (WHICH IS NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS THAN THE WARPING OF SPACETIME) RELATIVE TO OUR OBSERVATION. Am I being extreme? Absolutely. I keep thinking one of these days you all will get the extremely simple and frankly indisputable point I am making: there is only one truth. The Universe is Infinite.
The apple may well have an impact, but not instantly. Gravity waves only travel at light speed, so any impact will also take an amount of time similar to the orders of magnitude you are talking about here. The butterfly effect is not instant.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zilve and efarina96

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
The apple may well have an impact, but not instantly. Gravity waves only travel at light speed, so any impact will also take an amount of time similar to the orders of magnitude you are talking about here. The butterfly effect is not instant.:)
Wrong. The apple in my hand instantly exerts a force on the Earth, which affects the force the Earth exerts on the Sun, which affects the force the Sun exerts on the planets, which affects the force the Solar System exerts on the Milky Way, which affects the force the Milky Way exerts on Andromeda, all in a way we might consider to be unmeasurable. Cause and effect is ultimately part of an infinite continuum, where every thing is constantly and persistently effected by everything. Sorry to be so blunt. Feel free to explain why I am wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zilve

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
The apple may well have an impact, but not instantly. Gravity waves only travel at light speed, so any impact will also take an amount of time similar to the orders of magnitude you are talking about here. The butterfly effect is not instant.:)
This persistent affect is also the explanation behind quantum entanglement, by the way.
 
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
555
Wrong. The apple in my hand instantly exerts a force on the Earth, which affects the force the Earth exerts on the Sun, which affects the force the Sun exerts on the planets, which affects the force the Solar System exerts on the Milky Way, which affects the force the Milky Way exerts on Andromeda, all in a way we might consider to be unmeasurable. Cause and effect is ultimately part of an infinite continuum, where every thing is constantly and persistently effected by everything. Sorry to be so blunt. Feel free to explain why I am wrong.
Cause and effect is ultimately part of an infinite continuum, where every thing is constantly and persistently effected by everything.
Exactly correct, but not instantly!

'Cause and effect' works by one particle/wave affecting another usually by collision of particles propagating one or more at a time, like dominoes. It takes time.

If you just hold the apple steady there will be no further effects, the sun etc will have taken account of it. Cause an effect needs motion, so you only create an effect if you move or throw the apple. this effect will only propagate at light speed, and won't affect the sun for a further 8mins.

The results from LIGO show light and gravity waves to be the same speed (I think). :)
 
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
555
This persistent affect is also the explanation behind quantum entanglement, by the way.
The concept of instant is meaningless. For something to have an instant effect would require an infinite communication speed of something - just not possible!

Just because no one has measured the speed of entanglement doesn't mean you should assume it's instant. Nothing is instant. Entanglement like everything else has a reason or mechanism behind it, we just haven't discovered it yet.

Even in relativity 'instant' is meaningless, observations depend on how the observer is moving.:)
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
The concept of instant is meaningless. For something to have an instant effect would require an infinite communication speed of something - just not possible!

Just because no one has measured the speed of entanglement doesn't mean you should assume it's instant. Nothing is instant. Entanglement like everything else has a reason or mechanism behind it, we just haven't discovered it yet.

Even in relativity 'instant' is meaningless, observations depend on how the observer is moving.:)
Infinity has no beginning and no end. It is not beholden to the thermodynamic arrow of time the way you and I are. The reason Einstein's Theory of General Relativity points to a singularity "before" the dawn of time as well as at the heart of a black hole, is that Eternity is everything, always and forever. What we perceive as a beginning, is eternity. What we perceive as an end, is eternity. All matter and all energy is eternal (e=mc^2, matter cannot be created or destroyed. Let me say it again for emphasis: matter cannot be *created* or *destroyed*) We observe it in a particular order in accordance with our observations of light, which moves at a limited speed relative to the eternal void of the spacetime vaccuum. Apologies if some of my terminology is not precise enough, but you should be able to get the point. So, not instant. Infinite. Understand the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David J Franks

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
Exactly correct, but not instantly!

'Cause and effect' works by one particle/wave affecting another usually by collision of particles propagating one or more at a time, like dominoes. It takes time.

If you just hold the apple steady there will be no further effects, the sun etc will have taken account of it. Cause an effect needs motion, so you only create an effect if you move or throw the apple. this effect will only propagate at light speed, and won't affect the sun for a further 8mins.

The results from LIGO show light and gravity waves to be the same speed (I think). :)
Everything moves, always. The Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun. The apple moves with it, adding mass and thereby gravitational force via the warping of spacetime to the Earth, Sun, and all other massive objects in the Universe. Everything is connected, always.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David J Franks
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
555
Infinity has no beginning and no end. It is not beholden to the thermodynamic arrow of time the way you and I are. The reason Einstein's Theory of General Relativity points to a singularity "before" the dawn of time as well as at the heart of a black hole, is that Eternity is everything, always and forever. What we perceive as a beginning, is eternity. What we perceive as an end, is eternity. All matter and all energy is eternal (e=mc^2, matter cannot be created or destroyed. Let me say it again for emphasis: matter cannot be *created* or *destroyed*) We observe it in a particular order in accordance with our observations of light, which moves at a limited speed relative to the eternal void of the spacetime vaccuum. Apologies if some of my terminology is not precise enough, but you should be able to get the point. So, not instant. Infinite. Understand the difference.
So, not instant
Thank you

Definitly

I mostly agree with everything else you've said here.

Except, I don't believe a true void exists anywhere, I think it contains something like quantum foam or quantum fields etc. Infinite yes, but full of something. If there's something here there's something everywhere! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
Thank you

Definitly

I mostly agree with everything else you've said here.

Except, I don't believe a true void exists anywhere, I think it contains something like quantum foam or quantum fields etc. Infinite yes, but full of something. If there's something here there's something everywhere! :)
Fair point! I think there are a lot of theories out there regarding virtual particles popping in and out of existence in the spacetime vaccuum, and I didn't mean to preclude that possibility with my choice of terminology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David J Franks

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
AgreedAgreed :)
Thanks for taking the time to chat. I get a little carried away sometimes but I get so excited... And I feel like in my life when I know I'm right, I usually am. And I really feel strongly that I have stumbled onto something extremely important. I know I am not as knowledgeable as any legitimate scientist out there, but I also feel that is not the be all end all. Sometimes a fresh perspective is important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David J Franks
Nov 19, 2021
41
2
55
We think of space and distance as simply units of km or similar whereas is it not correct. All distance includes time and technically should be expressed as spacetime units (except EMR that has no time).
The idea that entanglement may not involve time is intriguing. Not likely perhaps but suggests an experiment.
 
Last edited:
Jan 27, 2020
263
88
780
Wrong. The apple in my hand instantly exerts a force on the Earth, which affects the force the Earth exerts on the Sun, which affects the force the Sun exerts on the planets, which affects the force the Solar System exerts on the Milky Way, which affects the force the Milky Way exerts on Andromeda, all in a way we might consider to be unmeasurable. Cause and effect is ultimately part of an infinite continuum, where every thing is constantly and persistently effected by everything. Sorry to be so blunt. Feel free to explain why I am wrong.
***

So, efarina, your quote "instantly exerts a force" is the very definition of Newtonian gravitation, where one mass acts on another at once across a distance in what Newton termed "absolute time". Ergo Newton thought gravity acted instantaneously; that distance didn’t matter.

Voltaire, (1694–1778), explained Newton's science accurately in nontechnical terms for the general reader in his book Eléments de la philosophie de Newton (Elements of Newton's philosophy, 1738).

Voltaire wrote that Newton's triumph in mechanics, including the calculus, proved that science would eventually explain everything, in terms of rigid cause-and-effect (deterministic) laws: “It would be very singular,” Voltaire wrote, “that all nature, all the planets, should obey eternal laws."

Thus, with the advent of Newton's laws, condensed in his magnum opus, Principia de Mathematica (1687), we can chart the rise of the growing mechanistic view of the Universe acting according to certain definable laws such as the inverse square law, part of Newton's Law of Universal Gravity: where F = Gm 1 / r 2 m 2. Here F is gravitational pull, G is the universal gravitational constant (a fixed number, G = 6.6742 × 10 -11 m 3 kg -1 s -2), m 1 is the mass of one object, m 2 is the mass of the other object, and r is the distance between the centers of the two objects.

In electromagnetism, when you shake an electron, it creates a change in the electric field that spreads out at the speed of light. Gravity works the same way. Shake a mass and the change in the gravitational field — gravitational waves — also propagate at the speed of light (c).

You also state that "the force the Milky Way exerts on Andromeda, ...in a way we might consider to be unmeasurable..."

However, it is calculable given the time and understanding of the following:

In the figure below, the 𝐅⃗12F→12 vector points from object 1 toward object 2, and hence represents an attractive force between the objects. The equal but opposite force 𝐅⃗21F→21 is the force on object 2 exerted by object 1.

vectors milky way andromeda.jpeg
Gravitational force acts along a line joining the centers of mass of two objects.

Note that the above applies to point masses—all the mass is located at one point. But it applies equally to any spherically symmetric objects, like galaxies, where r is the distance between the centers of mass of those objects. In many cases, it works reasonably well for nonsymmetrical objects, if their separation is large compared to their size, and we take r to be the distance between the center of mass of each body.

The approximate mass of each galaxy is 800 billion solar masses (a solar mass is the mass of our Sun), and they are separated by 2.5 million light-years. (Note that the mass of Andromeda is not so well known but is believed to be slightly larger than our galaxy.) Each galaxy has a diameter of roughly 100,000 light-years (1light-year=9.5×10*15m).

Screen Shot 2021-12-16 at 5.28.38 PM.png

We use Newton’s second law to find the acceleration of the Milky Way and we can consider the galaxies to be point masses, since their sizes are about 25 times smaller than their spatial separation.

See: https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/13-1-newtons-law-of-universal-gravitation#_=_

See: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light

See: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/

See: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/physics-newtonian-physics

See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/

The novel feature of special relativity, the rejection of Newton's absolute simultaneity necessitated only that absolute space and absolute time be replaced with an absolute space-time (Minkowski spacetime). Although Einstein's general relativity was in large part motivated by a desire to implement a general principle of relativity, to wit that all motion is relative motion, and that it succeeds in doing so was immediately questioned after the theory was introduced.

As for the question of the absoluteness of space-time in general relativity, it no longer has the character of something which acts without being acted upon, as Einstein himself pointed out. The space-time metric tensor not only encodes for spatiotemporal structure, but also represents gravitational potentials, and thus gravitational energy.

Einstein's famous equation for the equivalence of energy and mass, shows that the gravitational field possesses mass. Since gravitational energy cannot be localized in terms of an energy density tensor, but is possessed by the field holistically, neither can this mass be localized. Thus, the philosophical controversy as to whether space-time can exist without matter becomes increasingly tedious according to whether one counts the gravitation field as something material or not.

The distinction between what counts as matter in contrast to empty space presupposed in earlier debates has been eclipsed by possibilities undreamt of before the introduction of modern field theory and relativity.

We have moved far beyond Newton's simultaneity, his view of absolute time, and we are now at ease in space-time and the the changing values of (c) depending on the intensity of the surrounding gravitational field.
Hartmann352
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: Stan
Nov 19, 2021
41
2
55
We have moved far beyond Newton's simultaneity, his view of absolute time, and we are now at ease in space-time and the the changing values of (c) depending on the intensity of the surrounding gravitational field.
Hartmann352
You appear to be saying that the speed of light varies in sync with gravity. Do I misunderstand ?
 
Jan 27, 2020
263
88
780
Gravity does indeed affect the speed of light.

The curvature of spacetime by matter therefore not only stretches or shrinks distances, depending on their direction with respect to the gravitational field, but also appears to slow down the flow of time. This effect is called gravitational time dilation. In most circumstances, such gravitational time dilation is minuscule and hardly observable, but it can become very significant when spacetime is curved by a massive object, such as a black hole.

A black hole is the most compact matter imaginable. It is an extremely massive and dense object in space that is thought to be formed by a star collapsing under its own gravity. Black holes are black, because nothing, not even light, can escape from its extreme gravity. Major advances in computation are only now enabling scientists to simulate how black holes form, evolve, and interact. They are betting on powerful instruments now under construction to confirm that these exotic objects actually exist.

In General Relativity the concept of time disappears as a physically important quantity, because of the reparameterization invariance of the theory. This has led to considerable research in attempts to understand how to construct a consistent theory of quantum gravity. When we attempt to “quantize” spacetime, we find it difficult to maintain our classical ideas about local causality and special relativity associated with the Minkowski lightcone. Moreover, in quantum mechanics time is an external parameter, whereas in special relativity space and time are on an equal footing.

In cosmology, a comoving coordinate time does appear in the framework of a Friedmann, Robertson and Walker (FRW) spacetime, in which the time t appears as a universal time which measures the lifetime of the universe. However, the FRW metric is subject to a diffeomorphism reparameterization transformation* to non-comoving coordinates and the notion of a “universal” absolute time disappears.

The idea that a variable speed of light can solve the initial value problems of standard big-bang cosmology has received considerable attention.
Hartmann352

* During the last few years, there has been an upsurge of interest in the study of diffeomorphism invariant theories because one of the key and decisive features of the gravitational and (super)string theories is the observation that they respect the classical diffeomorphism symmetry transformations. The latter symmetry transformations can be exploited within the framework of Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin** where the classical diffeomorphism symmetry transformation is elevated to the quantum(anti-)BRST symmetry transformations. In fact, it is the key feature of the BRST formalism that the classical diffeomorphism transformation parameter is traded with the fermionic (anti)ghost fields/variables at the quantum level. In other words, the (anti-)BRST transformations are of the supersymmetric (SUSY) kind under which the bosonic type of fields/variables transforms to the fermionic type of fields/variables and vice versa. Two of the key properties of the (anti-)BRST transformations are the on-shell/off-shell nilpotency and absolute anticommutativity. These key properties encompass in their folds the fermionic as well as independent natures of the quantum BRST and anti-BRST symmetries at the level of physical interpretation. The nilpotency property (i.e., fermionic nature) of the (anti-)BRST symmetries (and their corresponding charges) is also connected with some aspects of the cohomological properties of differential geometry and a few decisive features of supersymmetry.


The BRST formalism has been exploited in the covariant canonical quantization of the gauge and diffeomorphism invariant theories in the past. At the classical level, the gauge theories are characterized by the existence of the first-class constraints [5, 6] on them. This fundamental feature is translated, at the quantum level, into the language of the existence of the Curci-Ferrari- (CF-) type restriction(s) when the classical theory is quantized by exploiting the theoretical richness of BRST formalism. Hence, the existence of the CF-type restriction(s) is the key signature of a BRST-quantized version of the gauge and/or diffeomorphism invariant theory. The CF-type restrictions are (i) deeply connected with the geometrical objects called gerbes responsible for the absolute anticommutativity of the quantum (anti-)BRST transformations, and (iii) the root cause behind the existence of the coupled (but equivalent) Lagrangians/Lagrangian densities for the (anti-)BRST invariant quantum theories (corresponding to the classicalgauge/diffeomorphism invariant theories). The Abelian 1-form gauge theory is an exception where we obtain a unique (anti-)BRST invariant Lagrangian density because the CF-type restriction is trivial in this case. However, this restriction turns out to be the limiting case of the non-Abelian 1-form gauge theory where the nontrivial CF condition exists.

See: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2021/5593434/

** BV-BRST formalism is a tool in homological algebra, higher differential geometry and derived geometry to handle the intersection- and quotient-constructions that appear:
1. in the construction of reduced phase spaces of Lagrangian field theories, in particular including gauge theories; (“Lagrangian BV”)
2. in symplectic reduction of phase spaces (“Hamiltonian BV”)

See: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/BV-BRST+formalism#idea
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
2
55
Gravity does indeed affect the speed of light.

"The curvature of spacetime by matter therefore not only stretches or shrinks distances, depending on their direction with respect to the gravitational field, but also appears to slow down the flow of time. This effect is called gravitational time dilation. In most circumstances, such gravitational time dilation is minuscule and hardly observable, but it can become very significant when spacetime is curved by a massive object, such as a black hole."
The invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum in relative free fall states is assumed - admittedly. Time dilation occurs as a result of gravitation but this is a rotation of the distance/time frame. The relationship between distance and time remains identical within the rotated frame (the same as the relationship between time and distance remains in the observer's frame but the frames are rotated one to the other).

Thought experiment:

We, as observers situated well away, from a hypothetical non-rotating black hole and any other local mass, watch as "Fred" approaches the event horizon. As Fred gets close his distance/time frame is rotated in accordance with the "slope" of the gravity well. His time appears to us to slow down. The light from Fred becomes red shifted (but still 'travels' at C. Eventually Fred appears to be taking days, then weeks, etc. to enter the event horizon and all the while his image (light) becomes redder until it enters infra red and we no longer can see him - although his radio wave image just seems to sit there unchanging.
The speed of EMR from Fred is still C
If we jump to Fred's side as he enters the gravity well everything appears quite normal* as our clocks continue to tick forward as they always did. Fred zaps a few photons from one side of his spaceship to the other and measures the speed of light. It remains as C.
* apart from our feet and legs stretching etc
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2021
41
2
55
The idea that a variable speed of light can solve the initial value problems of standard big-bang cosmology has received considerable attention.
Certainly true, agreed. However without any firm conclusion one way or the other. Classic theory GR remains in place for all practical purposes. For that matter SR remains unchallenged even though objects receding at a significant fraction of C show time dilation the effect is again a reddening of the light and not a change in the speed of light. I think this is a fair point and you may agree.
As for diffeomorphism symmetry transformations I don't really see that this effects the discussion as the object emitting EMR has specific conditions at the point of emission which will define that frames relationship with any receptor.
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
2
55
In General Relativity the concept of time disappears as a physically important quantity, because of the reparameterization invariance of the theory.
.
Invariant Hamiltonian Formalism ? I am quite ignorant of this impact however it is just a suggestion is it not ? ie not standard theory / not an accepted position (yet)
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
2
55
But back to the speed of light...
I believe it is accepted as a Conversion factor between time and distance is pretty solid stuff but that its 'invariance' is an assumption.
It follows that spacetime has a defined balance between space and time that is exactly defined by Einstein's Theories of relativity Lol, hardly necessary to state that of course. However, if we introduce the expansion of the universe then we also introduce the passage of time as a result of that expansion (expansion causes space - causes time ) they are interchangeable.

Given this we can try another thought experiment:
Let's say the expansion is uneven in a defined part of the universe. Let's say expansion in this part is .. Faster ..
Within this 'faster expansion' part the relationship of space and time remains the same. C still exists as the speed of light when measured from within that part of the universe. i.e. in one second light travels 300,000km (approx.) and Einstein's theories still stand unchallenged.
BUT
From within the slower expanding part of the universe the speed of light - compared with the faster expanding part - is DIFFERENT. It appears slower!

The point is that time is driven by expansion in the same way as space is driven by expansion. It must follow that during the inflation period the speed of light remained constant - as per a conversion factor - but was changing continuously when viewed from our present perspective.

Although a conversion factor can be applied it is obvious that, for us, time is very different to space but this is an issue of geometry. The (possible) nature of spherical expansion. But that's off the subject and a possible different thread of posts
 
Jan 27, 2020
263
88
780
Stan says, "Let's say the expansion is uneven in a defined part of the universe."

Konstantinos Migkas, of the University of Bonn in Germany, says that extrapolating that isotropic property to the present day might be relying on too many assumptions.

The current model of the universe holds that the rate of expansion is forever accelerating due to an ever-mysterious force called “dark energy” that is not well understood at all. In a statement, Migkas says:
"[Dark energy’s] baffling nature has not yet allowed astrophysicists to understand it properly. Therefore, assuming it to be isotropic is almost a leap of faith for now. This highlights the urgent need to investigate if today’s universe is isotropic or not.”
In the study, Migkas and colleagues looked 842 galaxy clusters, using data from three space telescopes: NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, Europe’s XMM-Newton and the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics which was launched as a partnership between the US and Japan. The researchers analyzed the temperature data from these galaxy clusters and used the data to calculate the X-ray luminosity of each galaxy in a manner that does not require knowledge of outside factors like the universe’s expansion rate.

Then, the researchers calculated X-ray luminosity for each cluster in a way that did require knowledge of the universe’s expansion. These two calculations side by side revealed the universe’s expansion rate across the sky, and it wasn’t the same everywhere. Migkas explains:
“We managed to pinpoint a region that seems to expand slower than the rest of the universe, and one that seems to expand faster! Interestingly, our results agree with several previous studies that used other methods, with the difference that we identified this ‘anisotropy’ in the sky with a much higher confidence and using objects covering the whole sky more uniformly.”
But Migkas says this doesn’t prove that the expansion rate isn’t uniform. He says that this is simply proof that it’s something cosmologists shouldn’t take for granted. The team says there are other possible explanations, such as gravity between separate galaxy clusters giving the illusion of different expansion rates.

But if it turns out that the expansion rates change throughout the universe it would reveal intriguing new mysteries into the structure and nature of the universe. It just goes to show that it might be a bit silly for us to have any assumptions at all about the true nature of the universe.

The researchers determined the temperature of each cluster by analyzing the X-ray emissions coming from huge fields of hot gas within them. They used this temperature information to estimate each cluster’s inherent X-ray luminosity, without needing to take into account cosmological variables such as the universe’s expansion rate.

The researchers then calculated X-ray luminosity for each cluster in a different way, one that did require knowledge of the universe’s expansion. Doing so revealed apparent expansion rates across the entire sky — and these rates didn’t match up everywhere.

“We managed to pinpoint a region that seems to expand slower than the rest of the universe, and one that seems to expand faster!” Migkas wrote in the blog post.

“Interestingly, our results agree with several previous studies that used other methods, with the difference that we identified this ‘anisotropy’ in the sky with a much higher confidence and using objects covering the whole sky more uniformly.”

In a nutshell, the gas temperature, the flux and the redshift of a galaxy cluster do not require any cosmological assumptions in order to be measured. Using the flux and the redshift together with the luminosity distance, through which the cosmological parameters come into play, one can obtain the luminosity of a cluster. The luminosity however can also be predicted (within an uncertainty range) based on the cluster gas temperature. Hence, adjusting the cosmological parameters, one can make the two luminosity estimations match. This can be repeatedly applied to different sky patches in order to test the consistency of the obtained values as a function of the direction. The full detailed physical motivation behind this is discussed in M18. There, it is shown that the directional behavior of the normalization of the LX–T relation* strictly follows the directional behavior of the cosmological parameter values. This newly introduced method to test the Cosmological Principle (CP) could potentially prove very effective due to the very homogeneous sky coverage of many galaxy cluster samples (in contrast to SNIa samples**), the plethora of available data as well as large upcoming surveys such as eROSITA*** (Predehl et al. 2016) which will allows us to measure thousands of cluster temperatures homogeneously (Borm et al. 2014). For studying the isotropy of the Universe with the future surveys, it is of crucial importance that any existing systematic biases that could potentially affect the LX and T measurements of galaxy clusters would have been identified and taken into account by then.

Such effects are seen at smaller spatial scales in the universe, the researchers said. But the new study probes clusters up to 5 billion light-years away, and it’s unclear if gravitational tugs could overwhelm expansion forces over such vast distances, they added.
If the observed expansion-rate differences are indeed real, they could reveal intriguing new details about how the universe works. For instance, maybe dark energy itself varies from place to place throughout the cosmos.

“It would be remarkable if dark energy were found to have different strengths in different parts of the universe,” study co-author Thomas Reiprich, also of the University of Bonn, said in the same statement. “However, much more evidence would be needed to rule out other explanations and make a convincing case.”

See: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2021/05/aa40296-21/aa40296-21.html

See: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/04/aa36602-19/aa36602-19.html

See: https://india.timesofnews.com/entertainment/space-technology/surprise-the-universes-expansion-rate-may-vary-from-place-to-place.html

* The X-ray luminosity-temperature (LX −T) relation of galaxy clusters is one of the most fundamental parameter correlations, established from previous X-ray observations (e.g. Edge et al. 1990). Since the X-ray luminosity reflects temperature and density profiles of hot intracluster medium (ICM), the LX − T relation should contain information on physical status and evolution of the ICM.

See: The Astrophysical Journal · April 2006 DOI: 10.1086/500294 · Source: arXiv

** SNIa samples: The current sample of high-redshift Type la supernovae (SNela), which combines results from two teams, the High-z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project, is analysed for the effects of weak lensing. After correcting supernovae (SN) magnitudes for cosmological distances, assuming recently published, homogeneous distance and error estimates, we find that brighter SNe are preferentially found behind regions (5-15 arcmin radius) that are overdense in foreground, z ∼ 0.1 galaxies. This is consistent with the interpretation that SN fluxes are magnified by foreground galaxy excess and demagnified by foreground galaxy deficit, compared with a smooth universe case. The difference between most magnified and most demagnified SNe is approximately 0.3-0.4 mag. The effect is significant at the >99 per cent level. Simple modelling reveals that the slope of the relation between supernova magnitude and foreground galaxy density depends on the amount and distribution of matter along the line of sight to the sources, but does not depend on the specifics of the galaxy biasing scheme.

See: https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/weak-lensing-of-the-high-redshift-snia-sample

*** eROSITA: This catalog contains the 542 galaxy cluster and group candidates detected in the eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS) presented in Liu et al. 2021. The main X-ray properties of these sources including temperature, luminosity, and flux, are measured with the eROSITA data, and are presented.

See: https://erosita.mpe.mpg.de/edr/eROSITAObservations/Catalogues/

If the observed expansion-rate differences are indeed real, they could reveal intriguing new details about how the universe works. Perhaps dark energy itself varies from place to place throughout the cosmos.
Hartmann352
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
2
55
If the observed expansion-rate differences are indeed real, they could reveal intriguing new details about how the universe works. Perhaps dark energy itself varies from place to place throughout the cosmos.
Loads of info here, will take a bit to absorb! It does seem as if the fog may clear a little, interesting!
 
Dec 23, 2021
4
0
10
An apple in your hand effects all of eternity. Whether you eat it, throw it at a wall, or throw it in the trash, your choice is a manifestation of relative infinity that impacts all things. Think "butterfly effect" on steroids. You can never possibly know the impact of any choice you make because the impact is *literally* unending. Take an apple 5 lightyears away... 50 lightyears away... 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 ^999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,984,812,999,999,999,999,999 lightyears away... Whatever happens to that apple, whether subjected to the whims of choice, laws of physics, or both, has an infinite impact across all of space and time. The further away from the observer's relative sphere of observation/influence the apple is, the less measureable the impact is on said observer's understanding/calculations of reality, BECAUSE THE OBSERVER DOES NOT HAVE INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS- *BUT IT ALL ADDS UP*. An object beyond our horizon of sight that contributes 1*10^-999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999% of the observed impact of dark matter and dark energy does not contribute 100% of the impact of dark matter and dark energy, *hence the fact that our calculations do not appear to demonstrate a universe of infinite gravity* because ALL OBJECTS EXERT A UNIQUE FORCE OF GRAVITY (WHICH IS NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS THAN THE WARPING OF SPACETIME) RELATIVE TO OUR OBSERVATION. Am I being extreme? Absolutely. I keep thinking one of these days you all will get the extremely simple and frankly indisputable point I am making: there is only one truth. The Universe is Infinite.
[/QUOTE
Problem with this argument is the agreeable definition of "warped"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS