kipac / answers Goto Github PK

I want to know what happens to the heat which is reflected back to the space
by earth.where does this heat go.

From the web form:

Is there a possibility that multiple big bangs occurred before and after our big bang?

@rac101 provided a draft answer by email: I'll post it in its branch for review.

Template will be html, and following KIPAC blog style, so posts can be dropped in to the blog easily.

This question came in recently and has not been answered yet.

Dark energy was postulated to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Whatever its nature and source, presumably we either expect there to be an enormous but finite potential reservoir (which we would expect to eventually run out) or we are abandoning the law of conservation of energy. No? Or have I simply run off the edge of my high school physics?

As a followup: has anyone calculated the necessary size of such a potential reservoir?

While reading a simplistic web article on the farthest observable galaxy, I came to the realisation that there is a terminal distance that light can travel before it is absorbed into the energy of the universe itself. Here is a sample of a question posed to NASA scientists:

Subject: Terminal distance observation of distant objects.

After reading http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/farthest_info.html I realised with a certainty that there is a terminal limit on the observable universe due to a very particular peculiarity of energy: time itself. The problems caused by Z.P.E. on light over time as demonstrated through S.E.D.

There's an exact point where light ceases to advance further in distance than a specific range due to obstructive energy confluence and matter creation due to ZPE. The missing constant in this calculation is time itself, where time and space are both instantaneous and infinite.

If we theorise that the current observable universe is that limit or very near to it, surely we might be able to calculate what that terminal range of light travel would be.

Has this been attempted?

With that question posed, I am asking other astrophysicists similar questions. Bear in mind that this is not the first place I have asked this question. I ask widely so that I might be able to gather info on differing views and insights missed by other answers.

One glaring issue I find with modern knowledge is the complete lack of attention on the dissolution of time itself. The problem is this: how do we measure time when the tape measure is a "rubber band" itself. This is the Zero Point Energy issue at play. The only solution is literally in defining what the terminal limit of distance that light can travel through obstructive energy absorption.

Here's the thing: as light travels through the inter-particulate vacuum of subatomic structures, part of its energy is transferred through collision with inadvertent matter and lost to the photon of light which in turn changes its frequency to a lower value. eventually this constant change in energy level is going to lead the photon to diverge its particulate nature into pure energy and become part of the ZPE itself.

Over time, this increase in ZPE will contribute to the expansion of the universe and distortion of time itself to ever longer periods, relatively speaking, but in actual fact time is slowing down which signifies that the universe must be getting heavier and less dense as matter gravitates towards convergence points of energy peak interference.

Let's say that in the beginning there was only a few billion cubic miles of universe. This would mean that there was very little ZPE and that the confluence of energy peaks would have contributed to agglomeration of matter at unprecedented rates, even as to create entire galaxies in just a day. As
that energy increased, time slowed down proportionately. This would mean that time itself must therefore be a component of the universe's energy as in a physical sense. As far as I know, gravity has not yet been explained thoroughly and the reason is probably down to this issue of time measurement
itself. Time remains unquantified and I believe that we can quantify absolute time by observing the limits of the observable universe as being finite ranges. Let's not use light as a constant for measuring the distances because light does not travel at a constant velocity. We have no idea what light has had to travel through to get to earth. In 2006 light was slowed to walking speed and then in 2009 it was stopped for a half hour before being released on its way again. Assume that light we observe has experienced this effect, however unlikely, so as to discount our reliance on light itself. We cannot
measure distance of objects according to the energy of light because again, we don't know what it has travelled through to be observed. The frequency of light is also affected by electromagnetic interference which makes it less sure again for measurement. Our ability to measure time is stumped by the ZPE, so if we can measure the ZPE density, then we should also be able to reverse calculate the origin of time expansion to eternity itself. Spacetime contains energy and there is a direct relation between time and space. Space contains matter and energy, which therefore means that time must have a quantifiable relationship to energy. Energy itself can create matter proportionately to the amount of time available. Which means we could find a way of working out the terminal range of light before it descends into the
ZPE of the universe to stretch time a little further and enlarge the universe even more.

So can we quantify time as a component of energy and determine the constant of absolute Time instead of relative time we have used until now?

This is a question that came in recently and I don't think it's been answered yet.

How can we know that the universe is 13.7 billion years old when the universe is accelerating in its expansion? Have we measured the acceleration rate? Even if we know that, how can we assume that the expansion rate has been constant over time? I know the microwave background radiation has something relevant to say here, but doesn't that also assume an expansion rate?

Is the sun further from the earth than it used to be? Are atoms or molecules further apart? Or are the galaxies further apart? Exactly where is this expansion happening? How much further away will the nearest galaxy be in say, 100 years?

If cosmologists admit we are in the dark about dark energy and matter, why are they seemingly so confident about other conclusions?

Where does the matter going into singularities go?

Since the light seen from the edge of the universe is billions of years old, those places must be
different than when that light originated, no? Why should we conclude that pulsars, for example, still exist?

The light we used to determine that the expansion is accelerating is billions of years old, so how do we know that this situation still exists? What about all the data based on energy that left its source billions of years ago?

The expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why the conclusion that it must continue to do so?

Could this expansion not be some lack of perspective on our part?

Could passing through the local fluff increase the chances of random objects to enter our solar system? And can we track the density of the interstellar clouds of gas as it passes by?

Needs to cover:

• How questions will be posted (including redaction)
• Open discussion of the answer
• Production of the answer (incl who will do the blog posting)
• FB and twitter advertizing, as for the other blog series.