, though incomplete,
What does this mean?
Also, the claim that the universe was initially microscopic is suspect as discussed on talk:Redshift. If the universe is infinite, than it was infinite already at the very first moment. --AxelBoldt
According to this theory, the universe emerged spontaneously between 10 and 20 billion years ago from a gravitational singularity, at which time started and all distances in the universe were zero.
A common way to think about this theory is to think of global time and space separately - the theory assumes Weyl's postulate, which states that this is possible. Thinking in this way, space itself has only existed for about 13-17 billion years. Thinking backwards in time towards the "beginning", this "beginning" can be thought of as a gravitational singularity.
The model includes all of space-time, so the question "What was there before the Big Bang?" is meaningless in terms of the standard model.
Because of this, the distance between distant galaxies increases faster than the speed of light. This is possible because special relativity only states that matter and information cannot travel through space faster than the speed of light. It doesn't limit how fast space itself can stretch.
Because of this, the change in comoving distance between distant galaxies divided by cosmological time[?] can be greater than the speed of light. This a theoretical concept and not an observational one. For example, galaxies whose light will not reach the Earth for tens of billions of years can be said to be moving away faster than the speed of light according to this definition. This does not violate the laws of special relativity, which is a local theory, which states, among other things, that matter and information cannot travel through space faster than the speed of light, but does not deal with global space-time concepts.
If an observational definition of distance to distant galaxies, e.g. the distance integrated along the path of a photon from a distant galaxy to the observer, using the locally valid distances at each point of the path, is used instead, then the change in this distance divided by cosmological time[?] cannot be greater than the speed of light.
A strict empiricist might say that using the former definition only relates to galaxies which do not exist, in the sense in which chocolates hidden in an unopened box do not exist to the observer, but further discussion of this should go to one of the philosophy pages. --boud
Good points. A couple of comments:
AxelBoldt 03:15 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)
Who put the bit aboout the K-correction? Nowadays it means something slightly different, but I don't know about the history of the term to know if the reference in the text is right.--AN 00:59 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
i've started with comoving distance
Who first coined...
The reference to Hoyle is there. And yes, that Hoyle is a he, but there's a younger F. Hoyle - Fiona Hoyle - doing observational cosmology research - who's not.
Who put the bit...
Guilty as charged. i've put in wirtz. He published in a journal whose abbreviation is identical with your nick: "AN".
You'd have to read the AN article (in German) to check - i don't have convenient access - so i don't remember whether his K-correction was a magnitude (logarithm of luminosity) correction or the redshift (shift in wavelength). But i agree the definition has probably evolved, though AFAIK this is where the term comes from.
--boud
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|