What exists beyond the known universe?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx
Is there another way to measure the expansion of the universe other than by red shift? I am more than a little excited. Please tell me more. It would make a lot of difference.

To start with, the expansion was predicted from Einstein's Relativity math. Which he then fudged to hide it. Hubble's usage of red shift was an after the fact way of confirming it and forcing Einstein to acknowledge the results of his math. Then we can measure the brightnesses and rotational velocities of entire galaxies and the measurement of another class of younger, more massive Type Ia Supernovae and by comparing them come up with expansion rates, which confirm the Red Shift numbers.

light does not have a temperature, but is colored by it."

The "color" of light is based on the TEMPERATURE of the black body radiator producing it. Light IS measured by "color temperature".

As to light having a temperature, It can indeed be said to do so. Admittedly only as an approximation. The colour of a light source corresponds to a particular temperature. The higher the temperature, the shorter the average wavelength of the light emitted.

OK, so which bandwagon will you jump to next time? Less filling? Great Taste?

A galaxy will emit light on many wavelengths, but in broad terms there is an average wavelength for its light that corresponds to a temperature. Red shift that galaxy and its apparent temperature drops.

Red shifts are determined by spectral distribution lines of specific elements (e.g. Carbon) NOT shifts in average wavelengths.

Red shift it enough and the apparent temperature drops to 3K. By that point it is (again apparently) radiating mostly microwaves.

Your claiming that distant galaxies have sufficient red shifts that "the apparent temperature drops to 3K". That is absurd.

If the universe goes on a lot further than we can so far detect, there may be an awful lot of extremely distant galaxies with output shifted down into the microwave range. Too weak for individual detection, the combined output would be an undefined blur. You get absorption lines for a single galaxy, but not for a mess of them of differing red shifts. The output may well be indistinguishable from a 3K background radiation.

What you are suggesting is that there is the "detectable" galaxies which are in the visible range of output. Further than there are some massive number of galaxies so far away that all we get is the 3k from them. But we do not see ANY galaxies which would bridge between them. No continuity to the spread of galaxies/ wavelengths. And further that energy (light shifted to 3k) has had time to reach us from these extremely far galaxies which are father away than woudl allow for that energy to ahve reached us in the time the universe has existed.

OK, show us how that works.

Ether way, the mechanisms I am suggesting are identical to those for background radiation from the BB.

No it is not. Not even close.

Ether the radiation from then has suffered drastic red shifting, or it has been absorbed and re-radiated, as heat, by dark matter.

Neither of which is what is proposed. So your claim of either or is bogus.

Hm. Fair point. Let me put another way. If what I was trying to say, and what Freethinker thinks I have said differ, I will spend some time trying to sort it out,

So you are going to change froom ignoring it? Let's all hope so.

I have already explained that I did not intend my words to be interpreted as saying their are galaxies older than the universe, but still you harp on about it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn
i think(emphasize THINK) that science can only lead you to God,

Oh PALEEZEE! THINK would require REASON. You have failed to show ANY REASON behind such claims. Only FAITH.

When you are capable of providing ANY science based data to support a god claim and overcome the massive amount of data that specifically refute the possible existence of the biblical god, THEN associating THINKING with a god myth might be correct.

whether you choose to accept that that is where it leads you is your choice.

"Choose to accept" would be appropriate. One can "Choose to accept" things which lack acceptance based on REASON or THINKING.

Although one could demote "thinking" to even what an ant does. If that is the approach you choose to use.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

The "color" of light is based on the TEMPERATURE of the black body radiator producing it. Light IS measured by "color temperature".

For the record...that is my quote you're replying to, not BEX's.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

I considered replying to your last message, but lets face it, life's too short already.

Tell you what. If you can shorten it a bit, and rephrase your points into a more polite style (one of which, at least, is a good one) I will give it my best shot. But at the moment your not coming over as nice enough to waste the time on.

[BlameTheEx]

Alll

My conscience is bothering me.

However impolitely, Freethinker did come up with one fair point. extremely red shifted galaxies won't work as a direct source of the 3K background radiation. If it were the case, we would expect more radiation from rather less red shifted galaxies.

[paultrr]

One thing that must be remembered here is not only does red shifting effect the amount of light we can receive, but, also, the speed of light and the age of the universe along with its actual size effects this. If the universe is some 14.5 billion years old and if C has remained constant since the end of the inflation period we can only expect to see light from that many years away. The speed of light sets its own limits on what we can observe. Also, as we look out into space we are also looking backwards in time, not forwards in time. The universe by some estlimates is some 75 billion light years in radius. These are assumptions even if they are based upon some knowns at present and as such are subject to a lot of possible errors. But, if the universe is that big then we only can expect to see only a small portion of that universe at anyone time. Its expansion also plays into this effect. In general if the current evidence for an accelerated expansion holds true what we can actually view will get less and less with time. Its expansion rate would eventually far outrun the velocity of light. Add into that some of the speculation that C may slow down with time and the case gets worse.

Part of inflation theory makes the prediction that the early universe expanded by some 10^50th powers. Even at that stage if one assumed C had its current value the whole universe has never been viewable from the inside.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: paultrr
Part of inflation theory makes the prediction that the early universe expanded by some 10^50th powers. Even at that stage if one assumed C had its current value the whole universe has never been viewable from the inside.

A very good point. For some reason we still need to hammer into folks that the big bang theory does not result in the universe having a center. But a lot of people also struggle with inflation and expansion and ask questions like "what does the universe expand into". I discussed this with a cosmologist at the University of Oslo a few years back when I worked as a science reporter and he explained that the problem is basically that people tend to think of the universe as the inside of a balloon, whereas it is much more practical to think about the observable universe as a circle on the surface of the balloon.

It means that even though we can only see as far as the curve of the balloon allows, we will be able to see farther as the balloon expands. But the expansion of the balloon as a whole will happen at a different rate than the expansion of the surface. Outside of the visible universe is simply more universe. Outside that - there is nothing, and there is nothing "above" or "below" either. But since we cannot observe it we cannot ever prove it (which was also a point made by John Barrow in his book "Impossibility" [aka "Pie in the Sky"]).

[paultrr]

If the Universe expands into anything under current thinking that something would be hyperspace itself. However, the modeling here on that subject itself differs across the board. The original idea way back was the universe was all there was. More recent modeling throws in the idea of hyperspace. But then again, to a certain extent hyperspace is also looked at under String Theory as the internal compacted space-time. Then you have hyperspace with multiple universes, sometimes refered to as the multiverse.

As far as our own perspective goes there is no center. I grant, from the aspect of a space-time or universe evolving from a singularity there should be something of a center to that expansion even if that center is never viewable by any means. We also through out terms like Hawking does about space-time being finite and unbounded. Simply put this means that the universe while finite in size has no outer edge, per say. The terms we use in themselves tend to get confusing.

About the only thing we do seem to know is that the universe from what we can tell observationally has no center, we cannot see any real boundary to it, and if there is such a boundary out there someplace that boundary is ever expanding at the present and for lack of a better word if it does expand into something the best discription we have at present is to call that other space hyperspace. What the real properties of that hyperspace are at the present can only be guessed at with theory. Here almost all of us who study cosmology and physics have our own view. But good point. Those are questions that keep getting asked inspite of all the decent popular science books and articles out there on the subject.

[pgrmdave]

why does there need to be anything beyond the universe? If it can't affect us and we can't affect it, how do we know that there's anything there? All the mental exercises have a basis in our own understanding of our universe and so they are inherently flawed to judge properties of a "beyond".

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

why does there need to be anything beyond the universe? If it can't affect us and we can't affect it, how do we know that there's anything there? All the mental exercises have a basis in our own understanding of our universe and so they are inherently flawed to judge properties of a "beyond".

Yes. I think that is what both I and paultrr are saying.