Welcome To Our Forums
Registration is required to post, but everyone is free to browse and read our forums. This is simply to prevent the spamming of our forums, and Registration is always free, and we will not share any personal details with anyone. You will need a valid email address to register as we need a way to confirm your registration.
You may login or register using the form to your right.
Thanks for stopping by and please enjoy your stay here on the Team Starfire website.
|
|
 | | TSWB Forums
|
|
|
| |
 | |  |
 | |  |
 | |  |
 | |  |
 | |  |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 7/30/2006
Posts: 12
|
|
|
I was just watching TV and a subject came up that has always perplexed me. They were talking about how they use "red-shift" to determine the distance of gamma ray bursts and other objects. In short, the redder an object/event the farther it is. Now I know that red-shift is a phenomenon of the doppler effect. What bugs me (the concept never fit the big picture for me), if an object is redder, it is traveling AWAY from the observer. It doesn't necessarily indicate the distance. I realize that if something is traveling faster, in more time it will be farther away. It doesn't necessarily indicate overall distance - only speed.
Case in point - say a train is coming at me at 60 MPH. As it approaches me the pitch of it's sound is slightly higher (if sound had color it would be bluer). As it passes me there is a brief moment where the doppler effect is negated. Very brief moment. After that the pitch is lower (if sound had color it would be redder). Other than that brief moment and it's immediate surroundings, the "redness" of it remains constant if the speed remains contant.
So how the hell do they use red-shift as a mechanism to determine distance? It doesn't seem feasible unless you know the time involved too. What the hell am I missing?
There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary - and those that don't.
|
|
|
|
 |  |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 7/7/2006
Posts: 2473
|
|
|
Got me. Listening for answers!
|
|
|
|
 |  |
|
|
 |
 |
andres-jam-en.blogspot.com Joined: 9/16/2007
Posts: 60
|
|
|
i didnt understand at a 100% all the subject, but i think i have an answer:
u said that as the object is traveling away from the observer it would be redder, what happen there, the wavelenght is increasing and the frequency is decreasing.
So, they can measure the frecuency and wavelength of the wave and determine the distance.
That makes sence to me, what do u think?
JAM
|
|
|
|
 |  |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 7/30/2006
Posts: 12
|
|
|
Well that is the basic gist of it. Problem is, if something is traveling x miles per hour, its perceived frequency will be off y percent at z distance. The problem is that doesn't tell you what the distance is. You can still have x miles per hour be off by y percent at any distance.
There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary - and those that don't.
|
|
|
|
 |  |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 7/20/2006
Posts: 176
|
|
|
Except for the stars whose distance can be read directly via parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec), the rest of the "distance measurement" is done by a supposition made by Edwin Hubble, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law. For many years, I've had the gnawing feeling that much of modern cosmology is based on a shaky foundation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable.
A "law" in science is one that is simply stated. It can't be proven. But, it also can't be disproven. This is different than the normal "observation -> hypothesis -> theory -> prediction -> experiment" progression where things can be proven. However, remember the statement "Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence".
James aka McSummation
|
|
|
|
 |  |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 2/24/2007
Posts: 453
|
|
|
McSummation wroteExcept for the stars whose distance can be read directly via parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec), the rest of the "distance measurement" is done by a supposition made by Edwin Hubble, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law. For many years, I've had the gnawing feeling that much of modern cosmology is based on a shaky foundation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable.
A "law" in science is one that is simply stated. It can't be proven. But, it also can't be disproven. This is different than the normal "observation -> hypothesis -> theory -> prediction -> experiment" progression where things can be proven. However, remember the statement "Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence". I was reading the other day that supernovas were going to be used as a measurement for galactic distances. the reasoning behind this is that supernovas explode almost identically so measuring one in a distant galaxy one can determine the size of the galaxy and by that the distance that galaxy is from us.
 
Truth is after all a moving target
Hairs to split, and pieces that don't fit
How can anybody be enlightened?
Truth is after all so poorly lit - Getty Lee
|
|
|
|
 |  |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 7/20/2006
Posts: 176
|
|
|
skildude wrote
I was reading the other day that supernovas were going to be used as a measurement for galactic distances. the reasoning behind this is that supernovas explode almost identically so measuring one in a distant galaxy one can determine the size of the galaxy and by that the distance that galaxy is from us.
I think that is as fallacious as saying that Cephid Variables are all alike in their luminosity.
Of course, I'm not a professional astronomer nor cosmologist. Just a simple physicist, then programmer.
James aka McSummation
|
|
|
|
 |  |
|
|
 |
 |
Joined: 7/30/2006
Posts: 12
|
|
|
I had also asked in another far OT forum that actually yielded an answer I could almost accept. He pointed to the article on red-shift on Wikipedia. I started reading it but I really didn't know what the hell I was looking for.
Copied below for convenience....
[copy] redshift is as u stated but simplified a bit so others can maybe better understand is when visible light....ie. the colors u see when light shines through a drop of water.... is either emitted or reflect by the object and is shifted toward the (less energetic) or "red" spectrum of light due to the Doplar effect. this redshift is caused by the wavelengths increasing. blueshift is the exact opposite and thus wavelengths decrease this also works and corresponds like u said for sound waves another thing to clarify is speed vs. velocity c speed is a scalar quantity and gives no direction when saying it were as velocity is a vector quantity and tells u whether or not it is moving toward u or away from u they do NOT use speed when determining redshift and in obtaining ur desired value distance. they use velocity.....and as u know velocity is change in distance/change in time in some direction where they are getting redshift from is to understand the difference in wavelengths emitted by an object based upon some stationary point (which i belive the point is the point in the specturm of light that the wavelenght should appear in not its shifted or redshift point....c as the planet for exaple is moving away at some velocity the wavelength that was sent at time A is going to have a lesser value then the value of the wavelength sent at time B they use this relationship to get a redshift estimate.....yes technically it is only an estimate because they didnt actually measure it they calculated it it has also been determined through matematical proofs and equalities that redshift is also equal to the velocity of the planet/the speed of light so actually they find the redshift first using the first method i told u about with the wavelengths then work backwards to determine velocity....then using this they can.... determine distance..... however to do this they also use a thing called hubbles constant(which is what you are missing) distance to whatever is = velocity/hubbles constant now hubbles constant is a whole nother story on its own, and you can just google it to find out how to find it cause i dont want to write a paper here, but essentially to find the distance they are using the velocity of the whatever you are looking at, hubbles constant, and the difference in wavelengths emitted by the whatever to find velocity to find distance. i pry confused u more but you can probably google either redshift or hubbles constant to get a better answer and some of this could be a bit off cause its coming off the top of my head and i didnt exactly try to memorize this stuff, but i think this will help.....maybe [/copy]
There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary - and those that don't.
|
|
|
|
|  |
 | |  |
 | |  |
 | |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 | | Account Login
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 | | TSWB Chat
|
|
|
| |
| The Starfire Channel |
| Join us 24/7 in our Team Starfire chat room. Everyone's welcome. |
For Mirc and other IRC clients
Click Here |
Or try our new Java client! It's pretty cool.
Click Here |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|