Contrabang! #29 Middlemen All The Way Down

This One Distant, Red, Gas-Free Galaxy Defies Astronomers’ Expectations (link)

We see this general pattern when we look at younger galaxies: they’re smaller, bluer, and filled with younger stars.

When they talk about younger galaxies looking a certain way, it's worth keeping in mind that they don't actually know which galaxies are younger or older; they are only making inferences from theoretical models of galactic evolution, similar to how they estimate the distances of galaxies. Here is an image caption from the same article.

Stephan’s Quintet, also known as Hickson Compact Group 92, consists of four galaxies gravitationally bound together and in the process of merging, along with a smaller, younger, closer galaxy (of a different color) that’s aligned only by chance in the foreground.

The redshifts put the bluer galaxy at only one-tenth the distance of the other, meaning they must be far more massive than the bluer galaxy to all appear similar in size. There are many examples of galaxies that appear to be part of some grouping, but the redshifts indicate they are no where near each other (which cases the "finger of God" effect that was discussed before). Another possibility is that there is something else causing redshifts, and those galaxies actually are interconnected as they appear to be.

This Is Why Dark Energy Is The Biggest Unsolved Problem In The Universe (link)

Dark energy was first revealed observationally: by examining the light from ultra-distant signals like supernovae. With measurements of both distance and redshift, scientists concluded that the Universe couldn’t just be made of matter and radiation, but needed a new form of energy that would change the fate of our Universe. Here’s why, more than 20 years later, it’s still the biggest unsolved problem of them all.

There's a lot of sloppy writing in this one paragraph. Dark energy was never revealed or observed; it was proposed. Thus, it is not actually an unsolved problem, as it is a solution proposed to solve the redshift problem. Also, while astronomers do have measurements of redshifts, they don't actually have measurements of distance. They have the inferred distances based on some supernovae which they believe to be standard candles, but probably are not.

One of the goals of modern observational cosmology is to fully describe dark energy by measuring as many different properties about the expanding Universe that are capable of probing its nature. As we collect large numbers of distant type Ia supernovae, better measure the large-scale clustering properties of the cosmic web at early, intermediate, and late times, and extract greater details from the cosmic microwave background’s fluctuations and polarization, we can better hone in on exactly how to describe dark energy.

They will become increasingly frustrated by the type Ia supernovae data because they don't actually function as standard candles. The whole thing is based off the theory that supernovae are caused by accretion disks, which feed the galaxy until it reaches some critical mass, triggering runaway fusion. There are a number of layers of unproven assumptions underlying Ethan's casual claim that we have "distance measurements" for distance galaxies.

Observations thoroughly rule out a Universe governed by General Relativity with no dark energy at all.

That is more a rebuttal of General Relativity than a validation for dark energy.

As of today, [alternative theories] all hand-wave the issue away, claiming that the “true” vacuum expectation value is likely zero, and ascribing what we observe as dark energy to an additional ad hoc effect.

Again, we don't observe dark energy, which is why it's called dark. Nor is it "hand-wavy" to assume there isn't some magical hidden energy lurking in the so-called fabric of spacetime until actual evidence indicates otherwise.

What Really Put The ‘Bang’ In The Big Bang? (link)

Scientists actively researching this have known the answer for quite some time. It’s time for everyone to catch up.

Ethan, laying down some sass, informs us that scientists actual solved the problem of the Big Bang decades ago.

So what is it that put the “bang” in the hot Big Bang? It’s the end of inflation. There is a state prior to the start of the hot Big Bang that set it up and provided it with the initial conditions of being spatially flat, the same energy density everywhere, always below a certain threshold temperature, and uniform with quantum fluctuations superimposed atop it on all scales.

When this inflationary state ended, the process of cosmic reheating transformed that energy — which had previously been inherent to the fabric of space itself — into particles, antiparticles and radiation. That transition is what put the “bang” in the hot Big Bang, and led to the birth of the observable Universe as we know it. 

So the big news here is that, in the 1980s, scientists decided to kick the can down the road. The Big Bang energy came from energy that was inherent to the "fabric of space itself" that somehow was transformed into normal matter and energy. There is apparently no problem in the universe that can't be solved with the some mystical energy inherent to the fabric of space.

This Is How Distant Galaxies Recede Away From Us At Faster-Than-Light Speeds (link)

It might seem puzzling, in a Universe bound by the speed of light, that this could be true. Here’s the science behind it.

It's not just puzzling, it is downright ludicrous. Ideally, once your theories cause you to start saying crazy things you should stop and try to figure out where things went awry, but the astrophysicists have blown past so many sanity checks that they've decided it best just to dig in and hope no one realizes.

Eventually, you’ll start viewing galaxies that are so far away that the light from them will be so severely redshifted that they’ll appear to approach, reach, and even exceed the speed of light beyond a certain distance. The fact that this is what we actually see might make you question everything you thought you knew about relativity, physics, and the Universe.

No, it makes me question the redshifts.

Yet what you see is real; those redshifts are no lie.

They've invented all sorts of hypothetical states of matter and energy to explain the universe, but won't allow that there may be something to the redshifts that we don't understand.

The idea of relativity is something that most people think they understand, but it’s important to be careful because of how easily Einstein’s theory can be misunderstood.

Most people think they understand relativity? Does this guy ever get out of his bubble? Most people don't know a single thing about it. Even most of the people who have actually tried to understand relativity don't understand it.

If you’re in the vicinity of a large mass, like a star or a black hole, space will be curved so that you’ll experience an acceleration towards that mass. This happens even in the absence of motion relative to the fabric of space itself; space is behaving like a flowing river or a moving walkway, dragging all objects along with it as it flows.

He then drops in this gif, which we're familiar with by now, and which we've criticized before here (see No, Black Holes Don't Suck Everything Into Them). In that article, Ethan assures us that there is nothing gravitationally special about black holes. They're very massive, but the orbital mechanics still work in the normal way. Then he says that the black holes actually suck in spacetime, which happens to pull any attached bodies with it, like pulling a rug with furniture on it. So the end result is that black holes do have a special power to suck in surrounding matter, he just wants to make sure you know the effect is done indirectly through the theoretical middleman of spacetime.

I have not been able to find a source showing that black holes sucking in spacetime is a feature of general relativity. It makes no sense to me - as does much of the mainstream body of theory - but I believe this one shows that Ethan doesn't actually understand the mainstream theory he is advocating for. In this article, he goes even farther in that direction. Before, at least there was some plausible theory they could create to explain the implosion of spacetime around black holes, since they're so willing to dismiss the known laws of physics and mathematics anytime a singularity is mentioned. But here, he claims that even stars have this ability too. Well, where does that come from?

Ultimately, that talk is all an aside in the article. The real story is that we are told that objects can move faster than light relative to each other, but only by the intrinsic expansion of spacetime.

All the galaxies in the Universe beyond a certain distance appear to recede from us at speeds faster than light. Even if we emitted a photon today, at the speed of light, it will never reach any galaxies beyond that specific distance. It means any events that occur today in those galaxies will not ever be observable by us. However, it’s not because the galaxies themselves move faster than light, but rather because the fabric of space itself is expanding.

The story of modern astrophysics is that there is dark matter wherever it is needed, and the normal rules don't apply in several instances where they would be inconvenient. There's always a middleman - spacetime, singularities, inflation, or cosmic expansion - to explain why the laws of physics are not actually being broken by the standard model of astrophysics.