- #36
Matterwave
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,971
- 328
How do you define "average recession speed"? This is not a meaningful quantity as far as I am aware.
What information do you need to answer that question? when you can say T0 100s?bobie said:The surface of a balloon is expanding at the rate 1cm+1/10mm/s, if you repeat observation you may establish if and how much/often the rate changes, you may conclude that a point at distance 10m is recessing at 1m/s , now,- for how long has it been expanding?
It has been mentioned multiple times that it is not.The key factor in the issue is T0 : why is it 1/H0?
George Jones said:Bobie, you do realize, don't you, that we routinely observe speeds greater than c in special relativity, e.g., in the Large Hadron Collider. (mfb and Matterwave: humour me, I haven't lost my marbles.)
Hi George, you don't have to go to great lengths, I actually wanted to ask this in the other thread:George Jones said:, I feel that I should expand on my comments about cosmological modeling, but I don't know if I have the stamina.
Hi mfb, please let me know if you agree that your argument on expansion was circular. (see post #31)mfb said:For a given object, you can indeed calculate an average recession speed
Measure the distance of nearby objects (let's say 10 million light years)...The speed divided by the distance is the recent expansion rate, averaged between "now" and "10 million years ago". Expansion does not change so significantly within 10 million years, so let's call this "the expansion speed in the last 10 million years".
Measure the redshift of objects 20 million light years away.
Continue this with more and more distant objects and you get the complete history of expansion.
wiki says it is 1/H0 by a small factor F, (a fractional contribution 1...), you mean: I should have written T0= ≈1/H0?mfb said:It has been mentioned multiple times that it is not.
.
The age t0 is then given by an expression of the form
[tex]t_0 = \frac{1}{H_0} F(\Omega_r,\Omega_m,\Omega_\Lambda,\dots) [/tex]
bobie said:In what way this expansion is related to the age of U , in any model?
bobie said:Hi George, you don't have to go to great lengths, I actually wanted to ask that in the other thread:
I suppose that the evaluation of distance is arbitrary only to a certain extent.
Suppose FLWR does not exist, to what extent is it possible to stretch the absolute distance?
Can you imagine a model in which actual distances are multiplied by a factor of 100?
One more thing, when you mention distance, do you mean proper distance? I mean do you find first Dnow and from that, dividing by S, Dthen, or vice vera?
As to C, I have read everywhere that actual velocity of an object cannot exceed it, only relative velocity can.
bobie said:wiki says it differs by a small factor, is it wrong?
T0= ≈1/H0
I did not refute nor support. I quoted what I read, I only changed ≈ to = , I said many times T0= 1/ H0 (omitting F). Is it a big problem? does it make any difference? are you splitting hairs? I was just referring to the fact that age of U is linked/related to/ based on the expansion rate, (not to its exact value). Does that change the substance? I asked why is it related to H0, what is the nature and necessity of this relation. And I gave you the example of the balloon , so that you might realize it is not a necessity (post #28 and #37)Matterwave said:mfb (as well as I) said that 1/H0 is NOT T0. Your point is not a refutation of his point, but supporting his point!
Please, when you reply. alwas check what my posts look like, because I always edit them soon after I posted ( I write in a rush and make a lot of mistakes).Matterwave said:But what we DO have are a large number of ways to determine the distance to an object,
Several ways of measuring distances to far away objects:
.
bobie said:As to distance I already corrected the slip 'absolute' I meant 'proper', distance is just distance.
what do you mean in your post #44 by 'distance'?
It was not circular. It was just not explained in every detail.bobie said:Hi mfb, please let me know if you agree that your argument on expansion was circular. (see post #31)
It is valid for all objects 10 Mly away (neglecting local motion, those objects all have the same apparent recession speed). But not for objects 20Mly away. Or for the same object 1 billion years ago.I am not sure I understood what you are saying here, are you saying that when you find the average rate for an object 10Mly far away that value is valid only for that given object and not for all objects in U at that time?
Yes, this is rough coincidence today, it has no special meaning (again, see previous posts). It was wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future.T0 ≈1/H0
I am glad you say that, mfb, because that is exacly what I meant from the beginning and in post #37:mfb said:It is valid for all objects 10 Mly away (neglecting local motion, those objects all have the same apparent recession speed). But not for objects 20Mly away. Or for the same object 1 billion years ago.
You take the averages of different epochs, make an overall average and there you have what seemed oscure in post #2: Ve, the average expansion rate of Ubobie said:- they say that it has fluctuated and now indeed it is accelerating. That implies that you are aware of different rates at different times. Make an average and tell me what it is.
I hope you had read my reply to matterwave.Yes, this is rough coincidence today, it has no special meaning (again, see previous posts). It was wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future.
≈ instead of = is a big difference.
Then you get "current proper distance"/"age of the universe". What's the relevance of that value?bobie said:You take the averages of different epochs, make an overall average and there you have what seemed oscure in post #2: Ve, the average expansion rate of U
Because there is no other way? You start with the current universe and work backwards until the distances become zero.I am not referring to present or past value of 1/H0, I am asking about the mere presence of H0 in the formula, why in determining the age of U you need to refer/consider/ relate to the expansion rate.
Expansion rates are not arbitrary, they follow the FLRW equations (according to our measurements).If you do, there must be a relation, a reason I am sure, why? I am not aware of the necessity of such a relation as I showed in the balloon example
mfb said:...
Expansion rates are not arbitrary, they follow the FLRW equations (according to our measurements).
Matterwave said:But what we DO have are a large number of ways to determine the distance to an object, irrespective of the FLRW metric.
marcus said:...I made a graphic plot of T and 1/H, to illustrate the relation between them.
There is a thumbnail of the graph, and a little bit of explanation of the Friedman equation here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4779726#post4779726
...
The curves cross at around year 15 billion, that is a little over one billion years from now, in the future. It is not true that, at present, T = 1/H...