You probably already know that our solar system is part of a much larger group of stars, the Milky Way Galaxy. And also that galaxies seem to be arranged in clusters. Some of these clusters are so large that they are called “super clusters.” The biggest single entity that scientists have identified in the universe is a super cluster of galaxies called the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall. It is so wide that light takes about 10 billion years to move across the entire structure.
So, our galaxy, which light could traverse in about 100,000 years is puny compared to this super cluster. But what I do not understand is that galaxies move and their speeds have been measured at from 0.05% and 1% of the speed of light, at the maximum. But all of the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall’s stars were cheek-by-jowl, right next to one another, according to the Big Bang Theory. In order for the farthest reaches of that super cluster to get that far apart, at the speed at which galaxies travel, would require one trillion years.
Now the universe is supposedly 13.8 billion years removed from the start of the Big Bang, according to that theory, so there hasn’t been enough time for those galaxies to get that far apart, traveling at the speeds galaxies do.
So, the solution? Obviously space-time is expanding. Bt there has never been any proposed explanation for why space-time would expand, much less that expansion accelerate as it is now claimed to be doing . . . well, none but the ad hoc, mysterious “dark energy.” To claim dark energy is the cause of that expansion is grotesquely misleading because it was hypothesized to explain that expansion, so its characteristics are being inferred from what it is supposed to explain, so it is tailor made to do just that. The only problem is no evidence of its existence has been found, so it is pure speculation. I might also note that dark energy has no behaviors it shares with any known phenomenon of the universe. In other words, you can’t use the “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, it’s a duck argument” because no form of energy behaves at all like the proposed dark energy. In fact it is only being called an energy because it is proposed as the explanation of an action. But no known form of energy comes close to doing what is claimed dark energy does.
So, while those galaxies are tottering along at at most 1% of the sped of light, the universe is expanding to make up the difference, which means it was expanding faster than the speed of light. (I don’t know how one could measure the speed of expansion of space and I have no reason to believe that expansion is limited to the speed of light (in a vacuum), but everything else seems to be.)
I am ready to admit I am a bear with very little brain when it comes to this topic, but still I tend to cringe at the outlandish number of ad hoc bizarre concepts being offered up. And, like string theory, there may be some truth there but it is impossible to test.
They came up with another idea to try to explain it all, cosmic inflation. The idea they came up with is that almost immediately after the big bang there was a period of time where the universe expanded exponentially driven by – something, some kind of vacuum energy? But they can’t explain where this energy came from. To make things even more interesting, they also claim that the expansion of the universe didn’t begin to accelerate until about 5 billion years ago when something suddenly jump started the process and cause it to speed up. To be fair this does help to explain why spacetime seems to be flat, why the cosmic background radiation seems to be so uniform and other things. Personally I think they’re really grasping at straws here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by grouchyfarmer — July 11, 2023 @ 11:17 pm |
Yep. No explanation for cosmic inflation. No explanation for how space itself could expand, along with time (doesn’t that affect all calculations of the durations of cosmic events?). No explanation for what existed before the Big Bang. No explanation for almost all of the BB Theory. But they got conjectures, lotsa them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by Steve Ruis — July 12, 2023 @ 12:11 pm |
Steve, To make a long story short, when cosmologists weigh the universe what they see doesn’t add up. It turns out that the universe is 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter and only 5% atomic matter. These figures were derived from observable data.
The adjective “dark” is used because cosmologists cannot measure dark matter and dark energy with present instrumentation or experiments.
LikeLike
Comment by Silence of Mind — July 12, 2023 @ 4:17 am |
You miss the point. They made up “dark matter” which is actually “missing matter” because there isn’t enough matter in the universe to make their theories work. There is no evidence of its existence, it is a mere patch on various theories. Same with dark energy, and yet you state those numbers as if they are facts, they are not. The so-called dark matter acts gravitationally but does not interact any other way. Is there any matter in the universe that behaves like that? (Pro Tip: No!)
LikeLike
Comment by Steve Ruis — July 12, 2023 @ 9:21 am |
Me too.
Latest Aeon has something claiming black holes are quantum computers.
https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-black-hole-at-our-galaxy-s-centre-a-quantum-computer
Okay. So if our universe is a black hole, then we live in a quantum computer.
OMG. It’s all a simulation!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Comment by James Cross — July 12, 2023 @ 9:15 am |
This is a consequence of an overconcentration on theory and a denigration of experiments/observations. Ever wild ass speculation is treated as if it were worthy of consideration. Theories are supposed to support tests of their validity, not just speculation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by Steve Ruis — July 12, 2023 @ 9:18 am |
Yes, but what if we are just the quantum computer on aisle 75 section 5 in somebody’s server farm? Wouldn’t that explain everything? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by James Cross — July 12, 2023 @ 10:28 am |
And with my luck it will be an NSA server farm.
LikeLike
Comment by Steve Ruis — July 12, 2023 @ 10:48 am |
It’s all above my pay grade! And I suspect it is for many others as well. But we humans DO like to speculate …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by Nan — July 12, 2023 @ 9:47 am |
I don’t think dark energy is meant as a claimed explanation, just an observation. If the expansion is accelerating, then something is causing that acceleration. My understanding of the “dark” in “dark energy” is that it’s meant to signify that nothing else is known about it. It could have just as easily been named “mystery expansion cause”, although that’s not nearly as catchy.
Ethan Siegel pointed out that superclusters technically aren’t “real” structures. They’re too big to be gravitationally bound to each other. The expansion of the universe will eventually tear them apart. The largest gravitationally bound structures are the straight clusters. In other words, get used to the Local Group, because in 100 trillion years, it’s all we’ll have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by SelfAwarePatterns — July 12, 2023 @ 1:51 pm |
Re “I don’t think dark energy is meant as a claimed explanation, just an observation.” It is not an observation, it is speculative cause for the “observed” expansion. And whether superclusters are or are not real structures, the material in them has spread to that degree from, according to the BBT, a point in space where they were very close together (actually hadn’t even formed yet). Whether such structures are gravitationally bound is interesting but irrelevant to my point (most people think that the stars in constellations are grouped . . . and they are not).
And, as a scientist, I am very, very leery of extrapolations as they are subject to initial conditions in the extreme, so speculations as to the state of the universe in 100 trillion years are worthless in my opinion. Consider that 100 years ago, there was only one galaxy (= the universe) and the universe was not expanding at all. Of what value are extrapolations made then? (Pro Tip: Zero.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by Steve Ruis — July 13, 2023 @ 9:44 am |
I think it’s a mistake to lump all extrapolations into the same bucket and then dismiss them all. The ones widely accepted as part of science are much more logically necessary, usually a step or two removed from measurements with no additional assumptions. On the other hand, as we move further from those measurements, typically additional assumptions have to be included, increasingly morphing it from extrapolation into speculation, and multiplying opportunities to be wrong. It’s why Occam’s razor is useful.
It’s worth noting that all observation is theory laden. For example, the expansion itself is an extrapolation, based on the increased red shifting of the light from objects as they seem smaller and dimmer. From that it’s deduced that the universe is expanding. There actually used to be alternate theories, like light fatigue, but my understanding is that the expansion remains the most compatible with all observations. It’s currently the most parsimonious explanation, but like all theories, it’s an extrapolation.
LikeLike
Comment by SelfAwarePatterns — July 13, 2023 @ 12:07 pm |
Re “I think it’s a mistake to lump all extrapolations into the same bucket and then dismiss them all.” Whoa! The rule for extrapolations back when I was doing science was that if you extend past half the range of your data, you are likely to be in Neverland. You mentioned a ten trillion year extrapolation and I stated it was worthless. All extrapolations are iffy, unlike interpolations which have real data on either side of “predicted” data.
Re ” For example, the expansion itself is an extrapolation, based on the increased red shifting of the light from objects as they seem smaller and dimmer. From that it’s deduced that the universe is expanding.” This is not an extrapolation, but a speculation. You know who didn’t by the red shift = expanding universe? Erwin Hubble. PS It is not the only explanation for the red-shifts.
LikeLike
Comment by Steve Ruis — July 13, 2023 @ 12:50 pm |