James Webb Space Telescope - First images coming tomorrow

[Qie Niangao]

7 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Expanding universe.

View of "far side", even farther away than "center".

Al dente, please.

I need some remedial cosmology here. This "far side" vs "center" thing has been rattling around my brain since the first JWST images arrived. We're looking at light emitted 13+ billion years ago, right? And where the JWST finds it in the sky corresponds to the part of the universe where it was emitted, 13+ billion years ago, right? And the universe has expanded a lot in those 13+ billion years.

So (unless we're somehow in the approximate center of all that expansion) shouldn't there be some area of the sky where all the really old stuff was when it was emitting all the really old light? and shouldn't the rest of the sky be filled with relatively "younger" light?

But that's not right, is it? I've never heard that they had to point JWST in any particular part of the sky to see the oldest light. And possibly related: the cosmic background radiation from the big bang comes from all across the sky—not perfectly uniform, but very close to it.

There must be some fundamental relativistic effect I'm missing. I try to imagine that there must be some universe-stuff at the furthest reach of the expansion, where over half the sky would be empty because that's where the universe is expanding into. Then I try to convince myself that space-time is curved in such a way that no such place can exist. Then, having never studied any of this, I wonder if my wastrel youth used too much drugs or too little.

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

I need some remedial cosmology here. This "far side" vs "center" thing has been rattling around my brain since the first JWST images arrived. We're looking at light emitted 13+ billion years ago, right? And where the JWST finds it in the sky corresponds to the part of the universe where it was emitted, 13+ billion years ago, right? And the universe has expanded a lot in those 13+ billion years.

So (unless we're somehow in the approximate center of all that expansion) shouldn't there be some area of the sky where all the really old stuff was when it was emitting all the really old light? and shouldn't the rest of the sky be filled with relatively "younger" light?

But that's not right, is it? I've never heard that they had to point JWST in any particular part of the sky to see the oldest light. And possibly related: the cosmic background radiation from the big bang comes from all across the sky—not perfectly uniform, but very close to it.

There must be some fundamental relativistic effect I'm missing. I try to imagine that there must be some universe-stuff at the furthest reach of the expansion, where over half the sky would be empty because that's where the universe is expanding into. Then I try to convince myself that space-time is curved in such a way that no such place can exist. Then, having never studied any of this, I wonder if my wastrel youth used too much drugs or too little.

  I find it easier to just think (even if I'm wrong): far away = old.

   My comment about "other side" was impromptu, I just assume there's "middles" and "near and far edges".

  Wish that I knew stuff!  

[Nalates Urriah]

8 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

I need some remedial cosmology here. This "far side" vs "center" thing has been rattling around my brain since the first JWST images arrived. We're looking at light emitted 13+ billion years ago, right? And where the JWST finds it in the sky corresponds to the part of the universe where it was emitted, 13+ billion years ago, right? And the universe has expanded a lot in those 13+ billion years.

So (unless we're somehow in the approximate center of all that expansion) shouldn't there be some area of the sky where all the really old stuff was when it was emitting all the really old light? and shouldn't the rest of the sky be filled with relatively "younger" light?

But that's not right, is it? I've never heard that they had to point JWST in any particular part of the sky to see the oldest light. And possibly related: the cosmic background radiation from the big bang comes from all across the sky—not perfectly uniform, but very close to it.

There must be some fundamental relativistic effect I'm missing. I try to imagine that there must be some universe-stuff at the furthest reach of the expansion, where over half the sky would be empty because that's where the universe is expanding into. Then I try to convince myself that space-time is curved in such a way that no such place can exist. Then, having never studied any of this, I wonder if my wastrel youth used too much drugs or too little.

It may be you are thinking of being near the "surface of the balloon" of spacetime. Instead assume we are somewhere inside the balloon. Also consider we can only see things that are... were... 13 billion years away. That doesn't mean we can see EVERYTHING that exists. There is likely more. The Forbes article points out the relationship of time and distance within our spacetime universe is not simple. Distance does not have a straight line relationship to time. Everything is relative.

Because spacetime is expanding and we are inside it, everything generally seems to move away from us. Once up on a time it was thought we were near or at the middle.

Think of cars on a highway. Your going 70mph (~110kph) and a car behind you is traveling 75mph. Use a radar speed meter and the car behind is traveling, approaching at 5mph, according to the meter...  Its all relative.

Consider that light speed is the limit. But there are galaxies moving away from us considerably faster than the speed of light... and we can still see them. They seem to move that fast because the spacetime around them is expanding and moving them away from us. Since the light can't go fast enough to reach us, it stretches... It started out traveling 13 b-yrs ago and spacetime is expanding as it travels, stretching it.

[Madelaine McMasters]

21 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

So (unless we're somehow in the approximate center of all that expansion) shouldn't there be some area of the sky where all the really old stuff was when it was emitting all the really old light? and shouldn't the rest of the sky be filled with relatively "younger" light?

We are in the approximate center of all that expansion. Everywhere is. Okay, that's not actually true. There really isn't a center.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/09/17/where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/

But, because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, every point within the universe is at the center of its own observing bubble. Over time, each bubble will contain less and less of the universe. In the extreme, the cosmic background radiation will fade to black and all those ancient galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and JWST images will slip beyond our grasp. Evidence of the Big Bang will vanish and future astronomers will have a very different understanding of the universe.

No matter where you go, there you are - Oliver's Law of Location

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

We are in the approximate center of all that expansion. Everywhere is. Okay, that's not actually true. There really isn't a center.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/09/17/where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/

But, because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, every point within the universe is at the center of its own observing bubble. Over time, each bubble will contain less and less of the universe. In the extreme, the cosmic background radiation will fade to black and all those ancient galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and JWST images will slip beyond our grasp. Evidence of the Big Bang will vanish and future astronomers will have a very different understanding of the universe.

No matter where you go, there you are - Oliver's Law of Location

You were there when it started, so you should know!

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

You were there when it started, so you should know!

I hope you're not looking for spoilers.

My lips are sealed.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I hope you're not looking for spoilers.

My lips are sealed.

Great Go-Go's song!

[Qie Niangao]

The universe is at no risk of my explaining it, but I think I finally understand how my reasoning was faulty. The Forbes article was indeed helpful, then what seemed to clarify the most was this bit from the Baird post:

Quote

Since the universe is expanding, you would think there is a center of expansion. But observations have revealed this not to be the case. The universe is expanding equally in all directions. All points in space are getting uniformly distant from all other points at the same time. This may be hard to visualize, but the key concept is that objects in the universe aren't really flying away from each other on the universal scale. Instead, the objects are relativity fixed in space, and space itself is expanding. You might be tempted to say that the location of the Big Bang is the center of the universe. But because space itself was created by the Big Bang, the location of the Big Bang was everywhere in the universe and not at a single point. 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

The universe is at no risk of my explaining it, but I think I finally understand how my reasoning was faulty. The Forbes article was indeed helpful, then what seemed to clarify the most was this bit from the Baird post:

Yep.

It's also easy to get confused by the descriptions of space-time as being "flat", which seems incompatible with our 3D view of the Universe. That "flatness" is at a higher dimensional level...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

It's perversely poetic that all the prose about our self centered view of the world is cosmological law.

[Love Zhaoying]

Now I've got Bhuvaneshwari stuck in my head. One of the 108 names I was taught.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhuvaneshvari

[Katherine Heartsong]

17 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Yep.

It's also easy to get confused by the descriptions of space-time as being "flat", which seems incompatible with our 3D view of the Universe. That "flatness" is at a higher dimensional level...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

It's perversely poetic that all the prose about our self centered view of the world is cosmological law.

I have always loved Turok's simple explanation of two infinitely almost perfectly flat, quantum vibrating sheets of a universe separated by mere quantum inches (aside: that appears curved to use due to the nature of gravity, space ,and time) on which energy just expands out across over a few trillion years.

At some point there is so little energy near to each other across these vast sheets that the vibrations of the two sheets suddenly touch again, bringing all the energy of each sheet onto that one point causing a new big bang and the cycle to start all over again.

[Luna Bliss]

55 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

Turok

He looks to be an interesting fellow. I had not heard of him:

 

[Finite]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

The universe is at no risk of my explaining it, but I think I finally understand how my reasoning was faulty. The Forbes article was indeed helpful, then what seemed to clarify the most was this bit from the Baird post:

 

Hence, no matter where you are in the universe you are the center of it. It's a very good matter of fact that could pump the ol' ego up a bit. 

"so you think the universe revolves around you?"

me: "yes"

[Luna Bliss]

All this new knowledge of outer space is interesting and fun, but I believe the nature of reality actually lies within our own minds -- that we should be exploring inner space first in order to understand outer space and comprehend the nature of reality:

“The undiscovered is not far away. It’s not something to be found eventually. It is contained within what is right in front of us. The essence of reality is being born right now. It has never existed before. Reality is constant creation and destruction, and in this constant change is something unborn and undying, something that cannot be approached through the known or the past. It isn’t seen through striving to become something based on ideals stemming from former experiences. It comes to that which is being, not striving. In this state of being in the moment, without the known, without knowing at all, with neither past nor future, is a space that is not filled with time. And in this space, the undiscovered and ever-changing moment exists—a moment containing all possibilities, the totality of existence, absolute reality. Reality is now, and in the now, we can experience the true nature of the universe and the universal mind.”
― h.e. davey

[Finite]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

All this new knowledge of outer space is interesting and fun, but I believe the nature of reality actually lies within our own minds -- that we should be exploring inner space first in order to understand outer space and comprehend the nature of reality:

 

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

All this new knowledge of outer space is interesting and fun, but I believe the nature of reality actually lies within our own minds -- that we should be exploring inner space first in order to understand outer space and comprehend the nature of reality:

“The undiscovered is not far away. It’s not something to be found eventually. It is contained within what is right in front of us. The essence of reality is being born right now. It has never existed before. Reality is constant creation and destruction, and in this constant change is something unborn and undying, something that cannot be approached through the known or the past. It isn’t seen through striving to become something based on ideals stemming from former experiences. It comes to that which is being, not striving. In this state of being in the moment, without the known, without knowing at all, with neither past nor future, is a space that is not filled with time. And in this space, the undiscovered and ever-changing moment exists—a moment containing all possibilities, the totality of existence, absolute reality. Reality is now, and in the now, we can experience the true nature of the universe and the universal mind.”
― h.e. davey

I think humans are doing both at the same time, cause we know a bunch about the inner verse too.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Finite said:

 

Very cool, Finite.  Firing up the bong*  LOL

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Ceka Cianci said:

I think humans are doing both at the same time, cause we know a bunch about the inner verse too.

uhhh...I dunno about that....I think we may be getting ready to obliterate each other on this precious earth   

[Finite]

11 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Very cool, Finite.  Firing up the bong*  LOL

oO maybe this would be better then

 

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

uhhh...I dunno about that....I think we may be getting ready to obliterate each other on this precious earth   

When I think about the universe and the inner verse, I don't really think about it being about us..

In the big picture, by the time we started  until the time we are extinct.. You'd probably have better luck seeing a quark flash than the blip we'd have put on the radar.

I like the saying , We are the universe, checking our self out from a different perspective.

If panning away from the earth doesn't humble someone, then I don't know.. hehehe

[Luna Bliss]

8 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

20 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

uhhh...I dunno about that....I think we may be getting ready to obliterate each other on this precious earth   

When I think about the universe and the inner verse, I don't really think about it being about us..

In the big picture, by the time we started  until the time we are extinct.. You'd probably have better luck seeing a quark flash than the blip we'd have put on the radar.

I like the saying , We are the universe, checking our self out from a different perspective.

If panning away from the earth doesn't humble someone, then I don't know.. hehehe

I know, I feel humans are insignificant in the scheme of things, and we've really f'd things up.

I do wonder though, if life or matter naturally evolves to become conscious of itself. Nothing teleological, like a plan, rather this just happens as a facet of the Universe.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Rat Luv]

 

.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Rat Luv

[rasterscan]

Wrap your head around this one. At the speed of light time stands still, according to Einsteins theory of relativity. So as far as that photon is concerned, It may have left its sun 13.7 bil years ago from our relative viewpoint, but from its own view it arrived at the james webb instantly.

 

Also this is of some concern-

https://mashable.com/article/james-webb-space-telescope-meteoroid-damage-nasa

Edited July 28, 2022 by rasterscan

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I know, I feel humans are insignificant in the scheme of things, and we've really f'd things up.

I do wonder though, if life or matter naturally evolves to be conscious of itself. Nothing teleological, like a plan, rather this just happens as a facet of the Universe.

That's one of the reasons looking outward is good.. Maybe we'll see some signs of it somewhere else and maybe even get to learn a little about  it..

For right now we are limited to what we learn from here..

 

 

 

[Katherine Heartsong]

6 minutes ago, rasterscan said:

Wrap your head around this one. At the speed of light time stands still, according to Einsteins theory of relativity. So as far as that photon is concerned, It may have left its sun 13.7 bil years ago from our relative viewpoint, but from its own view it arrived at the james webb instantly.

 

Also this is of some concern-

https://mashable.com/article/james-webb-space-telescope-meteoroid-damage-nasa

But we can't get to the speed of light since the mass of moving object, at that point, becomes infinite.