Double BULL'S-EYE for Einstein

I don't know if this has been posted, and I don't know if this is of some significance, just wanted to post it up for the members interested

cosmiclog

Using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers say they have spotted their first double Einstein ring – a bizarre optical phenomenon that shows how massive objects like galaxies can bend light rays, furnishing evidence for Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Interesting, but I have to wonder if it uses energizer batteries. I wonder if someone could have hoaxed that photo?

A variety of image size and format here:
SDSSJ0946+1006 images

Did I know dark matter could also be the cause of gravitational lensing? Hmmm...
I knew galaxies or massive objects were said to be among the culprits.
Don't recall DM, being mentioned. Interesting.

"Such stunning cosmic coincidences reveal so much about nature. Dark matter is not hidden to lensing," added Leonidas Moustakas of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "The elegance of this lens is trumped only by the secrets of nature that it reveals."

hubblesite.org...

A sample of several dozen double rings such as this one would offer a purely independent measure. The comparative radius of the rings could also be used to provide an independent measure of the curvature of space by gravity. This would help in determining the matter content of the universe and the properties of dark energy.

Is this only recent? im sure ive seen photos of gravitational warping of light due to clusters of galaxies that are a lot more prononced than that photo up above! Or am I missing the point altogether?

The point of emphasis on this image is that it is a double. One is directly behind the other, which is statisticaly amazing, causing the double halo. I saw this article a couple of days ago. Didn't think much of it other than it's a kool coincidence.

How does this necessarily support Einsteins theory of general relativity. The motion of the planets around the sun and the simplification to Newtons laws of motion support Einstein theory; but bending of light; surely not. Light is pure energy; hence massless. The bending of light has absolutely nothing to do with Einsteins theory of general relativity; because light has no mass and hence can not attract or repel anything.

I like to think of this bending of light as a first opinion. Many more thoughts and opinions will follow towards finding the real meaning behind this optical phenomena.

[edit on 1-18-2008 by websurfer]

reply to post by websurfer


Relativity suggests that light travels along Geodesics, that is, the path of least energy between two points. Relativity also suggests that gravity is not a force, but the result of mass distorting the fabric of space, like when you stretch out a rubber sheet and put a ball bearing in the middle of it. It will "attract" other, smaller items put on the same sheet. Light follows these geodesic paths, and to the human observer, it appears that light is indeed attracted by gravity, creating this gravitational lens effect.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by nataylor]

Originally posted by websurfer
Light is pure energy; hence massless. The bending of light has absolutely nothing to do with Einsteins theory of general relativity; because light has no mass and hence can not attract or repel anything.

Actually, in the Newtonian universe, gravity as a force couldn't act on something without mass - photons.

In relativity gravity isn't a force, but a distortion of space, like a bend. Light isn't being attracted, but just goes straight, but "straight" is "bent", so light can make a turn.


EDIT: I see Nataylor already explained it even better...

[edit on 18/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by nataylor

 

Relativity also suggests that gravity is not a force, but the result of mass distorting the fabric of space, like when you stretch out a rubber sheet and put a ball bearing in the middle of it. It will "attract" other, smaller items put on the same sheet.

This above imagened scenario is so flawed, and doesnt even come close to showing how the planets circle around the sun?
The Planets dont get attracted to the sun, like the above imagened scenario, where the small balls would end up lying around the ball bearing, not circling it! And definitly not circling themselfs!

You could try to rotate the rubber sheet around the ball bearings axis... but then the other small balls will just be removed from the sheet due to socalled centrifugal force.

You would also have to "cut" thrue a rubber sheet to get below it, and that is clearly not the case with space either.

So please come up with a "true" imaginable scenario with its roots in relativity, to show how it works, I would like to see it.

Also when mentioning "fabric of space" you must know what it is made of to make such a statement... so what is it made of? And remember it can't be empty and still made of something.

And how exatly does space get distorted by mass? I find it rather hard to believe that about 1% of the universe witch is mass would have such and effect on the 99% of universe that is space.

Originally posted by Bluess
This above imagened scenario is so flawed, and doesnt even come close to showing how the planets circle around the sun?
The Planets dont get attracted to the sun, like the above imagened scenario, where the small balls would end up lying around the ball bearing, not circling it! And definitly not circling themselfs!

He was just trying to explain the bending of space on a 2D model. And he did post links to even better explanations.

There are many such depictions, with a 2D grid with a planet pushing down on the middle of it and bending it. I agree, that these 2D models don't really help understanding it.

But imagining a "bend" or rather such a distortion in 3D space is even harder, if not impossible to imagine.

It is much easyer to imagine gravity as a force attracting massive bodies together, with a centrifugal force keeping sattelites in orbit - the Newtonian explanation of the universe.

But this doesn't explain other effects as well as the relativity theory - bending of light for example.

Still, it's just a theory, but the best one so far, since we see many confirmations in the form of predicted effects, which is what the OP is about.

Sooner or later we will find a better theory, allowing us a better understanding of the old effects, and also showing us possible exceptions. But untill then, we have to stick with what works.

[edit on 18/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by websurfer
How does this necessarily support Einsteins theory of general relativity.
[edit on 1-18-2008 by websurfer]

You really need to re-read the explanation given to you about General Relativity,it predicted that massive objects would bend light, and was first observed in 1919 (mercury during an eclipse!)
As far as I no any way but dont take my word for it!

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
One is directly behind the other, which is statisticaly amazing, causing the double halo.

You would think with all the billions and billions of galaxies out there that the chances for this would be a lot higher!

reply to post by nataylor

Concerning geodiscs
Quotes taken from geodiscs; the website in question.

"Massless particles like the photon will follow null geodesics"
where "null geodesics have a tangent vector whose norm is zero"

Light is packets of photons. They follow null geodisc paths. Light is photon; as such it has no mass. It's just the same way as saying light follows the same direction as the space-time fabric. The same idea is applied to the gravitational lens.

Concerning gravitational lens
Quotes taken from gravitational lens; the website in question.

"The gravity from a massive object (such as a galaxy cluster or black hole) can warp space-time, bending everything in it - including the paths followed by light rays from a bright background source. "

Thoughts and Opinions

Maybe the same way light is bent when passing from one medium to another on the microscopic plane, where you have a diffraction index; the same thing happens when your looking at an incident like the Einstein-ring from afar.

The entities (stars, planets, etc) themselves act like atoms.

Originally posted by websurfer
Maybe the same way light is bent when passing from one medium to another on the microscopic plane, where you have a diffraction index; the same thing happens when your looking at an incident like the Einstein-ring from afar.

Light travels "slightly" differently through transparent objects, like glass for example.

I'm not sure i remember it completely correct, but i think when photons hit atoms in a transparent object, they get absorbed by the atom. It's electrons go into a higher energy state, which is unstable, so they give off another photon.

So the atoms basically pass photons along to each other. First by absorbing the original one, then by emmiting another one which hits the next atom and so on...

This is why light travels slower through air and even slower through glass. Also, if the glass is darker, the light travels even slower through it.


If i made a mistake in the explanation, i hope someone corrects it..

reply to post by websurfer


No, gravity wouldn't cause light to refract like going through a prism. The prism works because it bends light at different wavelengths a different amount. Gravity, however, simply alters the path the light takes, regardless of wavelength.

To me it's what you see is what you get a galaxy with three rings.

They are assuming the rings are separated by distance because of the differing red shifts, more astronomers need take notice of Halton Arps work, he' shown red shift cannot be from distance alone but has an intrinsic quality related to age, many quasars have been found connected to or in front of galaxies with vastly different red shifts, quasars themselves totally falsify the redshift = distance assumption. Although then this throws doubt on one of the main arguments regarding an expanding universe.
It's a galaxy with rings of differing red shift, I think differing age is more likely than distance, based on the evidence.

reply to post by squiz


Thanks for mentioning Halton Arp. I have had some questions of my own along those lines, and want to look into this further. I knew there was some work on the reliability of "red shift", but couldn't put the name into my head for love or money.

Originally posted by squiz
They are assuming the rings are separated by distance because of the differing red shifts, more astronomers need take notice of Halton Arps work, he' shown red shift cannot be from distance alone but has an intrinsic quality related to age, many quasars have been found connected to or in front of galaxies with vastly different red shifts, quasars themselves totally falsify the redshift = distance assumption.

Where did you read the red shift comes from distance?

Shifts in the wavelength of colour come from speed of the object giving off light. It means the universe is expanding, because almost all of the stars have a red shift in their light.


It is very similiar to the doppler effect in sound. When a police car is coming towards you, you hear a higher frequency sound, when it passes, you hear a lower frequency.


It's the same with stars. If they are moving towards us, you get a blue shift, and if they are moving away from us, you get a red shift.


But you are right, when you say it is related to the age, if the expansion of universe is accelerating. In this case more red shift means more speed, more speed means more time accelerating and more time means age.


And even tho the shift itself isn't a property of distance, you can calculate the distance from these factors.


EDIT: Unless you wanted to say that stars start giving off a different light as they age.. But that is something else entirelly.
I will look into what that person has to say.

EDIT EDIT: You probably meant expansion, not distance, right?
I found this theory called intrinsic redshift, by Halton Arp, but it would seem, that the newest discoveries support the original explanation - redshift as a property of speed.

Need to look into it further. One question tho.. Why does his theory appeal to you more, than the standard one?

[edit on 22/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by deezee
Where did you read the red shift comes from distance?
Shifts in the wavelength of colour come from speed of the object giving off light. It means the universe is expanding, because almost all of the stars have a red shift in their light.
It is very similiar to the doppler effect in sound. When a police car is coming towards you, you hear a higher frequency sound, when it passes, you hear a lower frequency.

Redshift objects moving away, blueshift objects moving towards us.
This was the original interpretation from Edwin Hubble, In the end even he didn't agree with his original assumption. Actually if you plot the trajectories according to this, the phenomena known as "fingers of god" occurs, all trajectories point back to the earth, so according to this, the Earth is at the centre of the universe!

But you are right, when you say it is related to the age, if the expansion of universe is accelerating. In this case more red shift means more speed, more speed means more time accelerating and more time means age.
And even tho the shift itself isn't a property of distance, you can calculate the distance from these factors.

How so? how could you differentiate between an old object moving slowly and a young object moving fast?

You probably meant expansion, not distance, right?

No, the evidence for expansion is directly connected to math (assumptions) and the flawed interpretation of redshift. I believe in growth not expansion.

I found this theory called intrinsic redshift, by Halton Arp, but it would seem, that the newest discoveries support the original explanation - redshift as a property of speed.

Wiki is a good resource for most things, however when it comes to matters of cosmology or anything controversial for that matter, I'd look elsewhere first. Again it's simply wrong in this case. The guardians of consensus!

I've read the newest discoveries, the evidence is the same bunk as usual nothing new. No offense intended.

When quasars were discovered in the 60's, based on the original assumption of red shift these objects were thought to be at the very edges of the visible universe, however no mechanism for their incredible brightness was available except by supernatural means. But if quasars are plotted at relative distances where they appear to be by observation, that is, in the local vicinity of galaxies, then their brightness falls into expected values.
Many quasars have been captured in images in front of or connected by filaments to galaxies of vastly differing red shift refuting the original assumption. Some astronomers know this, others don't want to go there because it pulls an enormous thread out of many many theories including the expanding universe.

Need to look into it further. One question tho.. Why does his theory appeal to you more, than the standard one?

The visual evidence, and Halton Arps study of quasars.
Read "Seeing red" by Halton Arp.

Thanx.

Originally posted by squiz
Actually if you plot the trajectories according to this, the phenomena known as "fingers of god" occurs, all trajectories point back to the earth, so according to this, the Earth is at the centre of the universe!

I know about this. This was the original impression, when they saw redshift in all directions.
But it can also simply be explained by expansion. The direction of the expansion should be possible to calculate from the differences in the redshift in different directions. Or is it "exactly" the same in all directions?

Originally posted by squiz
How so? how could you differentiate between an old object moving slowly and a young object moving fast?

I know, that there are many assumptions, when it comes to calculating things like that. You have to decide the type of the star first...
Just like you said below.

Originally posted by squiz
No, the evidence for expansion is directly connected to math (assumptions) and the flawed interpretation of redshift. I believe in growth not expansion.

What do you mean by growth? How is it different?
Besides, how can you say for sure, which theory is flawed?

Originally posted by squiz
Wiki is a good resource for most things, however when it comes to matters of cosmology or anything controversial for that matter, I'd look elsewhere first. Again it's simply wrong in this case. The guardians of consensus!

Hey, it was the first thing that showed up in google and i said i would look into it further. I just posted the links for others to see what it's about.
Besides, when theories are presented correctly, it doesn't matter if the person presenting them believes in them or not. At least not for me. But i know what you mean.

Originally posted by squiz
I've read the newest discoveries, the evidence is the same bunk as usual nothing new. No offense intended.

How can you say that?!? It's improoved bunk in a much higher resolution and 3D!

Besides, who should be offended in this? I've heard "No offense intended" many times, but usually there was something to be offended by, when this was said..

Originally posted by squiz
Some astronomers know this, others don't want to go there because it pulls an enormous thread out of many many theories including the expanding universe.

I don't care where the evidence leads, as long as it's closer to the truth. I do know, that many people interpret evidence, the way they want it to be tho... That's why i like to look into things myself.

Can you perhaps mention some of the most profound implications of intrinsic redshift?

Originally posted by squiz
Read "Seeing red" by Halton Arp.

Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.