Relativity and Cosmology Blog

Relativity and Cosmology

This is a Blog on relativity and cosmology for engineers and the like. My website "Relativity-4-Engineers" has more in-depth stuff.

You can comment directly on this Blog if the comment/question is relevant. to the topic Comments/questions of a general nature should preferably be posted to the FAQ section of this Blog (http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/316/Relativity-Cosmology-FAQ).

A complete index to the Relativity and Cosmology Blog can be viewed here: http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/browse/22/Relativity-and-Cosmology"

Regards, Jorrie

Previous in Blog: GP-B: Frame-Dragging Clearly Visible   Next in Blog: The 'Half-Twin' Puzzle
Close
Close
Close
11 comments
Rate Comments: Nested

Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

Posted December 10, 2009 12:00 AM by Jorrie

Imagine the cosmos some 200 million years after time zero. If the cosmos is presently in its prime (like a 30-something years old person), then in human terms the cosmos was about 6 months old at that stage. Very young, but probably a very violent place, with supernovae, not too far apart, going off everywhere. The stars of that time were apparently very hot and heavy and hence very short lived; also, their deaths were mostly violent supernovae. On the same human scale as above, few of them lived longer than 2 weeks - extreme infant mortality!

During those supernovae, lots of matter were thrown out, anything from elementary particles, up to atoms of some metals. Most of the matter were probably caught up in later generations of the star- and planet-formation, but some particles may have survived. For the purpose of this exercise, let's assume a few atoms made it out of that distant region and all the way to our region of the cosmos.[1] Let's also suppose that they were ejected with a velocity of 0.999c relative to the overall cosmic frame of reference,[2] the CMB - like high speed 'bullets' from afar.

What would the velocity of such bullets be when they eventually reach our neighborhood? And how long would they have taken to get here? If the cosmos was only 200 million years old and we can observe light from that era today, the light will be red-shifted to z = 19. Calculations show that when the light was emitted, the source had to be 1.8 billion light years from our region.[3] Let's take this as the original proper distance of the bullets from our neighborhood.

At that time, the cosmos was expanding extremely rapidly, but slowing down under the dominant gravitational force of all the matter in the cosmos. At first, those bullets, traveling at 0.999c, could not make any headway towards us; the expansion took them farther from us for quite some time. However, after the expansion rate diminished somewhat, the bullets did indeed start to come towards us. So, how long would they have taken and at what speed would they arrive?

If there was no cosmic expansion, it would have been rather simple: 1.8 billion light years at a speed of 0.999c would have taken 1.802 billion years and they would have arrived at the original 0.999c. However, with the observed expansion profile of the cosmos, it becomes quite tricky, for two reasons: (i) the bullets were taken away at first and (ii), their speed relative to the CMB would have dropped (or decayed) to a lower value.[4] In the end, the bullets would take almost 18 billion years to reach our neighborhood (~4 billion years from now) and they would arrive at the "sedate speed" of 0.64c.

Enough of these ramblings - let the graph on the right rather 'speak for itself'. The bullets were ejected at a proper distance of 1.8 Gly (the start of the dark blue D_proper curve) from where our Galaxy would form shortly thereafter (somewhere on the horizontal axis, D=0).

You can clearly see how the bullets first moved farther away from our quarters and then later started to get closer to us. They will take almost 18 billion years to reach us - where the D_proper graph intersects the horizontal axis, some 4 billion years into our future.

The green V_peculiar curve shows a bullet's momentum decay. V_peculiar starts at -0.999c and then gradually decreases in magnitude, until it passes us at around -0.64c. The reason for this decay is discussed in[4], but in a nutshell, as the cosmic balloon expands (R increases), any free particle's angular momentum[5] around the hyper-center remains constant; hence, it must lose some surface momentum. The light blue curve represents the Hubble velocity (V_Hubble = H x D_proper), which is the recession speed for the bullet's (then) proper distance. The red curve shows the proper velocity (V_proper = d(D_proper)/dt) of the bullet over time.

'Sexy' as these curves may appear, they represent some deep truths about the standard cosmological model. If you understand them, you could well be reckoned as an amateur 'cosmic ballistics detective'. If you don't, here's your chance to learn something more about that interesting trade - just ask...

Notes:

[1] Earth (and our galaxy) could not have been around yet, but that's a long story...

[2] It is known as the local rest frame w.r.t. the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), meaning an inertial frame in which the CMB has the same average temperature in all directions.

[3] These values are available from any good cosmological calculator. I have an up-to-date (2009) cosmo-calculator on my website Relativity-4-Engineers.

[4] See Blog entry Particle momentum decay. The equations can be found in my Blog entry on Tethered Galaxies.

[5] This angular momentum is equivalent to the so-called 4-momentum of the particle, which is constant during expansion.

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - Let's keep knowledge expanding Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - Hobbies - HAM Radio - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North America, Earth
Posts: 4528
Good Answers: 106
#1

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/11/2009 1:03 PM

Hi Jorrie,

Interesting post. If I understand, some particles ("bullets") from ancient supernovae will bombard us in about 4 billion years. I need some help in understanding this.

"let's assume a few atoms made it out of that distant region and all the way to our region of the cosmos"

But the universe was much smaller then, so do you mean where we were then, or where we are now? Were these particles ejected past us and are coming back, or coming forward? If coming back, is it from gravity or what?

-S

__________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#3
In reply to #1

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/11/2009 2:34 PM

Hi S, you asked: "But the universe was much smaller then, so do you mean where we were then, or where we are now?"

Since the time our Galaxy formed, probably some 0.5 Gy after the BB[1], it was always on the horizontal axis (D=0). Everything else moved away from our location - think about 'our button' on the cosmic balloon. So, at t = 0.2 Gy, the source of the 'bullets' was 1.8 Gly from 'our spot'. Thereafter, the bullet's distance from us followed the blue D_proper curve, arriving near us around t = 18Gy.

BTW, my 'bullets' were chosen to illustrate a difficult concept and may or may not correspond to real particles.

-J

[1] There is some uncertainty about this value - apparently it can be anything from 0.5 to 2.5 Gy after the BB. There are only very vague observational pointers to that date.

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - Cardio-7

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 621
Good Answers: 10
#2

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/11/2009 2:18 PM

You have no data re the slowing effect of the great hydrogen clouds, and dust, in intergalactic space, or the gravitational effects of the stars and galaxies that your "atom" passes close to, or through, in its travel. Would the atom be ionized by the fierce UV and higher energy radiation it passes through in all those millenia? If so, there would likely be more effects from plasma and polarized fields along its journey. That's a tough question to answer with so many unknowns. Perhaps with some basic data on the origin and travel of cosmic rays, that might be a help. Would the neutrons in the nucleus of your atom decay with time? Even with one atom of gas or dust per cubic Km of space, think of all the collisions during millenia of travel! Good luck!

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#4
In reply to #2

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/11/2009 8:34 PM

Hi Cardio07.

Firstly, the cosmos is mostly empty space - many photons make it through to us from almost the observable horizon without encountering anything in-between. A lot of cosmic ray particles do. I assume that a few of my bullets also do so without being affected in any significant way.

If we take my bullets to be uncharged particles, then magnetic fields are not slowing them down (or speeding them up, for that matter). Gravitational interactions do cause a very tiny 'slow-down' due to Shapiro time-delay - nothing compared to the 0.3c drop in velocity/momentum due to the peculiar velocity decay described.

Proton decay? Nope - the half-life of protons are at least 1033 years!

Remember, the point of the 'experiment' is to show the surprising result that a particle starting out at almost the speed of light and 'only' 1.8 billion light years from us (but in the very early universe), would take 18 billion years to reach us.

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#5

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/12/2009 1:07 AM

Please write me another poem.

The graph confuses me since while green starts out less than zero, blue, light blue and red, start up the scale.

The constant of the bullets is either a constant or not?

It is not.

Start to zero, and end at zero, would help me understand, though maybe that doesn't really happen?

I do not see the future on the graph.

As you know I liked the twisted balloon imagery of the infinity circle better than I liked the one round balloon for visualizing the cosmos, and I have never really liked graphs for complicated realities beyond simple things like the J curve about rabbits in the yard.

I do not know what CMB stands for.

If you don't want me to understand exactly what is going on, that is alright, for I admit I am not educated in your language, and it is not the end of the world if I don't.

P.S. My big problem now is trying to figure out off book and on book economics and where Marxist and Keynesian and Adam Smiths theories converge with the realities of the legal and illegal economic practices allowing for money and no money concepts of how to get along.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#6
In reply to #5

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/12/2009 2:08 AM

Hi Transcendian, not to worry, those graphs can confuse just about anyone!

The initial conditions specified were: at time 0.2 Gy, the bullets were fired from a positive distance of 1.8 Gly (or z = 19), at a negative peculiar velocity -0.999c (i.e., towards us).

At that time, the universe was expanding so fast that the supernova that 'fired' the bullets, was receding at V_Hubble = +6c (light blue) from us. Add the -0.999c of the bullets relative to the supernova, and we have the start of the red V_proper curve (V_proper ~ +5c).

The expansion rate dropped rapidly during that epoch and at around t = 4.2 Gy, the recession velocity (light blue) at the position of the bullets (now about 6 Gly from us) dropped to just below +c. Again, add the ~ -0.999c of the bullets (green) and the proper velocity (red) became just negative. From now on the bullets were making headway toward us. The proper velocity (green) actually decreased slightly as well, for the reasons discussed in the opening text.

The CMB is the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is a convenient frame of reference to use in cosmology. I urge you to, armed with the above insights, read the opening post again. Feel free to request more prose...

I'm glad I have this problem, rather than the one you closed with!

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#7
In reply to #6

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/13/2009 8:13 PM

Let me see if I can restate after my reading, and then going out for a beer, and letting the stuff settle in the back of my mind.

As you know I cannot read the equations.

Because I am essentially ignorant and then my value may be of use since you may get an idea of what to say to someone who is ignorant.

There is the speed of the bullet, and it slows.

Expansion of the Universe means that it has farther to go.

If the Universe just was, and was not expanding, as if in a football game the goalposts were being moved, as the players got tired, then what ought to have taken 1.8 billion years, takes 18 billion years.

This concept still confuses me since if the balloon model is only one balloon, and not the image I preferred I am left with no center.

If the Universe really is only one universe, and not two or more, then still even internally or externally it ought not be perfectly round, but more egg shaped.

This would mean to me that as the center point and the end points shifted the errant factors would have their places.

Then while the center, may well move around, we could find it.

P.S. Did you ever read that science fiction book wherein there was a game like hockey, except the puck was semi hollow and part filled with mercury, so that when struck it did not necessarily go in a straight line?

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#8
In reply to #7

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/14/2009 2:54 AM

"This concept still confuses me since if the balloon model is only one balloon, and not the image I preferred I am left with no center."

This is something that you just have to wrap your head around - the universe per se has no center, irrespective of what analogy/model you use. It is only our observable portion that have a center - exactly where we are, by definition.

"If the Universe really is only one universe, and not two or more, then still even internally or externally it ought not be perfectly round, but more egg shaped."

Why do you think so? Do not get confused by those elliptical projections (right) of the WMAP observations of the CMB temperature - they are only 'maps' of the observable universe at a very early age, not representative of the 'real thing'. Almost like an all-world map on a flat piece of paper...

No, I haven't read the book that you refer to, but it will be an interesting problem to try and work out the trajectory of such a puck...

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#9
In reply to #8

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/14/2009 9:17 PM

On an airplane the CG moves around depending on fuel burn, loading, and maneuvers.

Does the airplane have a center?

What happens when I walk the length of a an empty plane is that I change the center of gravity slightly which may cause the pilot to very slightly push down or very slightly pull back on the yoke.

Can you imagine the universe as if it were an airplane?

Do you think, or know, that the universe just sits in one place?

Even if it wanted to I cannot imagine that it could, if it is anything.

So while the universe may well not have a permanent center, I imagine it has one, if there is anything to it.

P.S. I once had the opportunity to take a walk in an empty DC 6. 766WC. Captain let me fly it for awhile.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#10
In reply to #8

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

12/15/2009 12:19 PM

Awhile after I went to bed I sort of got the no center concept imagining everywhere as the same start point. I guess this is what you mean by our observable portion.

To tell the truth it is the experience of my one vision that I cannot nor really want to shake that influences my imagery.

In some ways my vision actually does contain many centers equal to each other.

- as I write now I am bringing the vision back more fully, though it is still perfectly oval and egg shaped.

This does not give me any excuse to not work to understand your imagery and learned explanations. Just because I like multiverses swinging around a center of twisted nothing with difference constants for the speed of light, doesn't exactly make it so.

P.S. Apparently the successful Economist Paul Samuelson who just died a few days ago, applied theories of thermodynamics to economics.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5916
Good Answers: 204
#11
In reply to #10

Re: Cosmic Ballistics Anyone?

01/13/2010 1:25 AM

We don't know... so Russell, imho we can say that something with no borders has no center, and that if something has no center, it has no borders, when dealing with objects.

Logic can imply that the multiverse is like foam, but we have no basis for our paradigm; just a need to create artificial borders to satisfy the image.

Even if the universe is like a torus, where an observer viewing the 2 dimensional world they live in would conclude that there is no border and no center, we could agree, based on our ability to 'see' more dimensions, that there can be a definition of the construct.

Therefore I think that there can be a borderless and centerless definition of the universe (someday) , based on an increased number of dimensions than what we can perceive. Subsequently, there can also be a borderless definition of the multiverse, which in the torus paradigm, makes the multiverse into something like chain mail.

We can only say that mathematics provides the answer when mathematics can accurately represent all observable phenomena, and predict correctly the result of any experiment. Until then, imagination will continue to search out new paradigms.

Cheers,

Chris

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 11 comments
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Cardio07 (1); chrisg288 (1); Jorrie (4); StandardsGuy (1); Transcendian (4)

Previous in Blog: GP-B: Frame-Dragging Clearly Visible   Next in Blog: The 'Half-Twin' Puzzle

Advertisement