The light from that star took 12.9 billion years to reach us.
However in that time the space between us expanded enough that its current position is 28 billion light years away.
We can only see it due to a ridiculously lucky set of gravitational lensing effects that add up to a 1000x magnification.
Right that’s the part that ….I’m sorry if I’m being annoyingly dense….struggling with- if the space between us and the star is now such that it takes over twice as long for its light to reach us than the universe is “old” how does a lense even help that
How does a gravity lense allow information (???) about the star reach us before its light ever will
I’ve probably poisoned my mental model by reading a bad article about it
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
You arent dense reality is just way fucked up.
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
+16
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2023
Amyway the trick is that the actual space itself the light is travelling through is expanding. Like zooming in on an excel spreadsheet and the white empty space inside the boxes and lines and corners take up more screen real estate with empty space.
So while the light was travelling to us the star itself was being expanded away from its own light (and us).
Its fucked up man it doesnt make sense but that's how it works.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
+6
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2023
Dont feel bad about not understanding this a lot of physics is just trusting the math and logic and occasionally crying when it doesnt make a monkey brain shape.
Im pretty sure I explained it wrong anyway.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
+9
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
Amyway the trick is that the actual space itself the light is travelling through is expanding. Like zooming in on an excel spreadsheet and the white empty space inside the boxes and lines and corners take up more screen real estate with empty space.
So while the light was travelling to us the star itself was being expanded away from its own light (and us).
Its fucked up man it doesnt make sense but that's how it works.
This isn’t a good analogy, zooming in and out of an excel spreadsheet allows you to see more stuff.
Usually we use balloons to model this, but heck, lets stick with excel, a better analogy would be resizing all the cells at the same time.
The universe is always expanding, the rates have changes, but of the past 13 billion and change it has been pretty steady. In excel imagine clicking that top right button and select all the cells and then make everything one pixel bigger.
Now the interesting thing that happens here is that the cell that is 1 cell away is only 1 pixel further away, but two cells away it is two pixels away. and the thing seven cells away has moved further (seven cells) so things that are further away actually move faster, until things are literally moving at the speed of light away from us and then it can be seen anymore because, they're just too far away. So in this example, because the light is 13.6 billion years old (we think there is an entire argument that these galaxies are too big to form in the early universe and they are kind of a big question mark) it was released 13.6 billion years ago and in the mean time, while the light has travelled along, doing its thing, space between us and the original star has gotten bigger. A side effect of this is that the wavelength of the light has shifted and has move towards the red end of the spectrum.
Gravitational lensing is something very different. Gravitational lensing is just a way to focus light, things that are far away are hard to see. gravitational lensing is an object behind a large object having its light bent and by chance it being focused on earth so we can gather extra light from things far away so we can see them better.
Yeah the gravitational lensing just makes it a little brighter so we can pick it out against the background radiation at all, doesn't significantly affect the light's travel time.
The light from that star took 12.9 billion years to reach us.
However in that time the space between us expanded enough that its current position is 28 billion light years away.
We can only see it due to a ridiculously lucky set of gravitational lensing effects that add up to a 1000x magnification.
Right that’s the part that ….I’m sorry if I’m being annoyingly dense….struggling with- if the space between us and the star is now such that it takes over twice as long for its light to reach us than the universe is “old” how does a lense even help that
How does a gravity lense allow information (???) about the star reach us before its light ever will
It doesn't. Expansion of the universe and gravitational lensing are different. But the light is the only "information about a star" we get. That's not two separate things and they don't arrive separately.
Expansion of the universe means that the light from a distant object will take a longer time to reach us than the original distance would indicate. It also means that by the time the light reaches us the object is further away than it originally was. This is how you get an object we can see being further away from us than the age of the universe. And because light is a wave, it is also being "stretched" by the expansion making the wavelength longer the further it has to travel, thus making the light we eventually receive more red and dim the further away the object is.
But because light speed is finite and constant, the light we receive is not how the object looks today, but how it looked at the time the light was emitted from the object, which was in the past. So the farther away on object is, the further "back in time" you are seeing.
A gravitational lens doesn't do anything to "speed up" the information/light getting to us. Light speed is always constant. A gravitational lens just bends and focuses the light. Just like a telescope it can make an object appear larger/closer so we can see it better.
Perhaps where the confusion is is the combination of distant objects are seen as they appeared in the past and gravitational lensing allowing us a better look at some objects. That's usually reported as a gravitational lens "allows us to see further into the past" implying something about time/speed when it really should just be "it allows us to better see older objects".
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Perhaps where the confusion is is the combination of distant objects are seen as they appeared in the past and gravitational lensing allowing us a better look at some objects. That's usually reported as a gravitational lens "allows us to see further into the past" implying something about time/speed when it really should just be "it allows us to better see older objects".
Yeah this, it's just a misleading headline
+2
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
We're pretty much up to the "dismantling what is almost certainly a real fire alarm" portion of this escape room, yeah.
All the physicists are going to be really pissed when God checks in and is like "Ah geez folks, I'm sorry about this. Greg, you asshole, you forgot to put batteries in the UV flashlight. They were supposed to find the code to kick off the Age of Wormholes and Free Energy like a century ago, they've just been locked in here fucking around with...ionizing radiation and semiconductors? Listen, let me give you some coupons for the frozen yogurt place next door, I just feel terrible about all this."
Amyway the trick is that the actual space itself the light is travelling through is expanding. Like zooming in on an excel spreadsheet and the white empty space inside the boxes and lines and corners take up more screen real estate with empty space.
So while the light was travelling to us the star itself was being expanded away from its own light (and us).
Its fucked up man it doesnt make sense but that's how it works.
The light from that star took 12.9 billion years to reach us.
However in that time the space between us expanded enough that its current position is 28 billion light years away.
We can only see it due to a ridiculously lucky set of gravitational lensing effects that add up to a 1000x magnification.
Right that’s the part that ….I’m sorry if I’m being annoyingly dense….struggling with- if the space between us and the star is now such that it takes over twice as long for its light to reach us than the universe is “old” how does a lense even help that
How does a gravity lense allow information (???) about the star reach us before its light ever will
It doesn't. Expansion of the universe and gravitational lensing are different. But the light is the only "information about a star" we get. That's not two separate things and they don't arrive separately.
Expansion of the universe means that the light from a distant object will take a longer time to reach us than the original distance would indicate. It also means that by the time the light reaches us the object is further away than it originally was. This is how you get an object we can see being further away from us than the age of the universe. And because light is a wave, it is also being "stretched" by the expansion making the wavelength longer the further it has to travel, thus making the light we eventually receive more red and dim the further away the object is.
But because light speed is finite and constant, the light we receive is not how the object looks today, but how it looked at the time the light was emitted from the object, which was in the past. So the farther away on object is, the further "back in time" you are seeing.
A gravitational lens doesn't do anything to "speed up" the information/light getting to us. Light speed is always constant. A gravitational lens just bends and focuses the light. Just like a telescope it can make an object appear larger/closer so we can see it better.
Perhaps where the confusion is is the combination of distant objects are seen as they appeared in the past and gravitational lensing allowing us a better look at some objects. That's usually reported as a gravitational lens "allows us to see further into the past" implying something about time/speed when it really should just be "it allows us to better see older objects".
So basically imagine the light from the rear lights of a car reaching you, but hte car is also speeding as fast as it can away from you instead of maintaining a stable distance relative to you, right?
Then the lensing just helps (naturally?) focus and ensure the light reaching us is still something that is viably transmitted to us, like (as previously described) using a telescope to resolve images beyond normal human vision allows.
The gravity lens is redirecting photons in our direction. It is bending space in such a way that photons that would have missed us are now pointed directly at us. The real crazy thing is that because the effect comes from literally bending the fabric of space, from the photons perspective it never changes direction.
+1
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
A really brain breaking idea/question is to ask: Well what if our observable Universe resides within a giga-massive blackhole? Then the observed expansion of our universe, and big-bang inflation itself, is all just gravitational lensing/space-time shearing, albeit as a vast and ever increasing scalar function. Our galaxy is a bubble in an ever less dense/entropic glass of water.
It would also explain so called 'dark' energy.
The big bang that started *our* universe could be a collapsed star from a topologically higher level universe to ours.
Amyway the trick is that the actual space itself the light is travelling through is expanding. Like zooming in on an excel spreadsheet and the white empty space inside the boxes and lines and corners take up more screen real estate with empty space.
So while the light was travelling to us the star itself was being expanded away from its own light (and us).
Its fucked up man it doesnt make sense but that's how it works.
The light from that star took 12.9 billion years to reach us.
However in that time the space between us expanded enough that its current position is 28 billion light years away.
We can only see it due to a ridiculously lucky set of gravitational lensing effects that add up to a 1000x magnification.
Right that’s the part that ….I’m sorry if I’m being annoyingly dense….struggling with- if the space between us and the star is now such that it takes over twice as long for its light to reach us than the universe is “old” how does a lense even help that
How does a gravity lense allow information (???) about the star reach us before its light ever will
It doesn't. Expansion of the universe and gravitational lensing are different. But the light is the only "information about a star" we get. That's not two separate things and they don't arrive separately.
Expansion of the universe means that the light from a distant object will take a longer time to reach us than the original distance would indicate. It also means that by the time the light reaches us the object is further away than it originally was. This is how you get an object we can see being further away from us than the age of the universe. And because light is a wave, it is also being "stretched" by the expansion making the wavelength longer the further it has to travel, thus making the light we eventually receive more red and dim the further away the object is.
But because light speed is finite and constant, the light we receive is not how the object looks today, but how it looked at the time the light was emitted from the object, which was in the past. So the farther away on object is, the further "back in time" you are seeing.
A gravitational lens doesn't do anything to "speed up" the information/light getting to us. Light speed is always constant. A gravitational lens just bends and focuses the light. Just like a telescope it can make an object appear larger/closer so we can see it better.
Perhaps where the confusion is is the combination of distant objects are seen as they appeared in the past and gravitational lensing allowing us a better look at some objects. That's usually reported as a gravitational lens "allows us to see further into the past" implying something about time/speed when it really should just be "it allows us to better see older objects".
So basically imagine the light from the rear lights of a car reaching you, but hte car is also speeding as fast as it can away from you instead of maintaining a stable distance relative to you, right?
Then the lensing just helps (naturally?) focus and ensure the light reaching us is still something that is viably transmitted to us, like (as previously described) using a telescope to resolve images beyond normal human vision allows.
it's both, space is stretching out, but the gravity lens part is only relevant to focusing faint light from further away objects enough that we can see it
1. It allows more light to reach us, which allows us to see more detail if the lens is good. Remember that these lenses are diffuse clouds of dark matter. We are relying on luck on its placement. Luckily the universe is full of galactic clusters and objects behind it.
2. If the lens is not uniform, you get artifacts and you may even get double images, and the path length for these may be different. So you see the same object twice, at a slightly different times.
If you are confident in the exact cause (shape) of these, you can calculate backwards and have more information than if you had just seen the object without lenses.
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
+6
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
🐄 Animal #28 🐖
I figured it out in 4 guesses!
🟥🟥🟥🟩
🔥 1 | Avg. Guesses: 4
Dont feel bad about not understanding this a lot of physics is just trusting the math and logic and occasionally crying when it doesnt make a monkey brain shape.
I literally cried in 5th grade math because up until then I'd been really good at arithmetic but when they introduced multiplying by decimals I had real trouble wrapping my head around multiplication ending up with a smaller number. That's what division was for! That's why we made this whole other thing right!?
This is a lot of fun. It's wordle, but for cladistics and taxonomy.
I feel like I'm pretty bad at that but I did get it in 8 guesses. It helped that my first 6 were on the opposite side of the tree so I had to get weird.
This is a lot of fun. It's wordle, but for cladistics and taxonomy.
I feel like I'm pretty bad at that but I did get it in 8 guesses. It helped that my first 6 were on the opposite side of the tree so I had to get weird.
I had several guess all on the wrong side of the tree and I finally gave up and burned a hint because I for some reason I was mixing up which level of the tree what I was looking at described.
Then when I got that hint and saw it was a cnidarian, I got on my first guess of "some of type of coral, brain I guess? it's the autocomplete"
I feel like there's a bunch of animals missing, like nematode wasn't in there, and seemed a good option. But I guess with as many animal species as there are it makes sense there'd be limits.
Also the site is really chugging now. Guessing it's getting hammered.
+1
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
My first guess was warthog and it said "animal not found in database" and I closed the page
Just remember, if that website uses a true random, there's like an 80% chance it's a marine animal, and then an 80% chance if it's not a marine animal it's an insect.
Ocean big.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Posts
However in that time the space between us expanded enough that its current position is 28 billion light years away.
We can only see it due to a ridiculously lucky set of gravitational lensing effects that add up to a 1000x magnification.
Right that’s the part that ….I’m sorry if I’m being annoyingly dense….struggling with- if the space between us and the star is now such that it takes over twice as long for its light to reach us than the universe is “old” how does a lense even help that
How does a gravity lense allow information (???) about the star reach us before its light ever will
So while the light was travelling to us the star itself was being expanded away from its own light (and us).
Its fucked up man it doesnt make sense but that's how it works.
Im pretty sure I explained it wrong anyway.
This isn’t a good analogy, zooming in and out of an excel spreadsheet allows you to see more stuff.
Usually we use balloons to model this, but heck, lets stick with excel, a better analogy would be resizing all the cells at the same time.
The universe is always expanding, the rates have changes, but of the past 13 billion and change it has been pretty steady. In excel imagine clicking that top right button and select all the cells and then make everything one pixel bigger.
Now the interesting thing that happens here is that the cell that is 1 cell away is only 1 pixel further away, but two cells away it is two pixels away. and the thing seven cells away has moved further (seven cells) so things that are further away actually move faster, until things are literally moving at the speed of light away from us and then it can be seen anymore because, they're just too far away. So in this example, because the light is 13.6 billion years old (we think there is an entire argument that these galaxies are too big to form in the early universe and they are kind of a big question mark) it was released 13.6 billion years ago and in the mean time, while the light has travelled along, doing its thing, space between us and the original star has gotten bigger. A side effect of this is that the wavelength of the light has shifted and has move towards the red end of the spectrum.
Gravitational lensing is something very different. Gravitational lensing is just a way to focus light, things that are far away are hard to see. gravitational lensing is an object behind a large object having its light bent and by chance it being focused on earth so we can gather extra light from things far away so we can see them better.
Satans..... hints.....
It doesn't. Expansion of the universe and gravitational lensing are different. But the light is the only "information about a star" we get. That's not two separate things and they don't arrive separately.
Expansion of the universe means that the light from a distant object will take a longer time to reach us than the original distance would indicate. It also means that by the time the light reaches us the object is further away than it originally was. This is how you get an object we can see being further away from us than the age of the universe. And because light is a wave, it is also being "stretched" by the expansion making the wavelength longer the further it has to travel, thus making the light we eventually receive more red and dim the further away the object is.
But because light speed is finite and constant, the light we receive is not how the object looks today, but how it looked at the time the light was emitted from the object, which was in the past. So the farther away on object is, the further "back in time" you are seeing.
A gravitational lens doesn't do anything to "speed up" the information/light getting to us. Light speed is always constant. A gravitational lens just bends and focuses the light. Just like a telescope it can make an object appear larger/closer so we can see it better.
Perhaps where the confusion is is the combination of distant objects are seen as they appeared in the past and gravitational lensing allowing us a better look at some objects. That's usually reported as a gravitational lens "allows us to see further into the past" implying something about time/speed when it really should just be "it allows us to better see older objects".
Yeah this, it's just a misleading headline
All the physicists are going to be really pissed when God checks in and is like "Ah geez folks, I'm sorry about this. Greg, you asshole, you forgot to put batteries in the UV flashlight. They were supposed to find the code to kick off the Age of Wormholes and Free Energy like a century ago, they've just been locked in here fucking around with...ionizing radiation and semiconductors? Listen, let me give you some coupons for the frozen yogurt place next door, I just feel terrible about all this."
So basically imagine the light from the rear lights of a car reaching you, but hte car is also speeding as fast as it can away from you instead of maintaining a stable distance relative to you, right?
Then the lensing just helps (naturally?) focus and ensure the light reaching us is still something that is viably transmitted to us, like (as previously described) using a telescope to resolve images beyond normal human vision allows.
It would also explain so called 'dark' energy.
The big bang that started *our* universe could be a collapsed star from a topologically higher level universe to ours.
Isn't it more that the street is getting longer?
1. It allows more light to reach us, which allows us to see more detail if the lens is good. Remember that these lenses are diffuse clouds of dark matter. We are relying on luck on its placement. Luckily the universe is full of galactic clusters and objects behind it.
2. If the lens is not uniform, you get artifacts and you may even get double images, and the path length for these may be different. So you see the same object twice, at a slightly different times.
If you are confident in the exact cause (shape) of these, you can calculate backwards and have more information than if you had just seen the object without lenses.
I figured it out in 4 guesses!
🟥🟥🟥🟩
🔥 1 | Avg. Guesses: 4
https://metazooa.com/
#metazooa
This is a lot of fun. It's wordle, but for cladistics and taxonomy.
I feel like I'm pretty bad at that but I did get it in 8 guesses. It helped that my first 6 were on the opposite side of the tree so I had to get weird.
I don’t even know what I played
I started with the creature everything else strives to become
I had several guess all on the wrong side of the tree and I finally gave up and burned a hint because I for some reason I was mixing up which level of the tree what I was looking at described.
I feel like there's a bunch of animals missing, like nematode wasn't in there, and seemed a good option. But I guess with as many animal species as there are it makes sense there'd be limits.
Also the site is really chugging now. Guessing it's getting hammered.
Ocean big.
ooo a game I can play!
🦔 Animal #29 🐭
I figured it out in 4 guesses!
🟨🟩🟩🟩
🔥 1 | Avg. Guesses: 4
https://metazooa.com/
#metazooa
heh, same. 4 guesses to nail down the clade and then 3 more exhausting every option.
I figured it out in 11 guesses!
🟧🟥🟧🟨🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
🔥 1 | Avg. Guesses: 11
https://metazooa.com/
#metazooa
Guessing all of its family members including ones not appearing in the family photo, before resorting to Wikipedia.
Good fucking lord that is a heavy goddamned planet.
Away with me, me hearties; we’re shapin’ our space sails for a treasure planet.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]