- #1
Enquerencia
- 25
- 1
- TL;DR Summary
- If the objects in the universe further from us appear to be expanding faster than those closer to us, and the light we see from them is older, then isn't this consistent with a SLOWING expansion?
I am certain that my confusion here rests in a misunderstanding on my part and not in a mistake having been made by countless physical theorists. Nevertheless, I have had a hard time wrapping my head around it. Here is the crux:
We observe that light from distant objects is more redshifted than light from near objects. We also know that this light has traveled vast distances to reach us and therefore shows us the universe *as it was* rather than *as it is.* This indicates to me that the distant objects were moving away from us, faster than nearer objects are currently moving from us, at the time that this light was emitted. This seems more consistent with the idea that the expansion of the universe is slowing, rather than accelerating.
Those distant objects may be gone now for all we can know; the only evidence we have of their existence is, by nature of their distance, millions or even billions of years old. I fail to understand how we can assume that they are *currently* moving faster than the objects nearer to us. What seems to be the case is that objects once moved away from us more quickly than they do now.
I'm thinking my misunderstanding lies in my interpretation of how redshift is used to measure the speed of objects moving away from us. But again, I struggle to comprehend how light that has traveled for millions of years can tell us anything about the current state of the sources of that light.
I appreciate anyone who takes the time to help me understand this.
We observe that light from distant objects is more redshifted than light from near objects. We also know that this light has traveled vast distances to reach us and therefore shows us the universe *as it was* rather than *as it is.* This indicates to me that the distant objects were moving away from us, faster than nearer objects are currently moving from us, at the time that this light was emitted. This seems more consistent with the idea that the expansion of the universe is slowing, rather than accelerating.
Those distant objects may be gone now for all we can know; the only evidence we have of their existence is, by nature of their distance, millions or even billions of years old. I fail to understand how we can assume that they are *currently* moving faster than the objects nearer to us. What seems to be the case is that objects once moved away from us more quickly than they do now.
I'm thinking my misunderstanding lies in my interpretation of how redshift is used to measure the speed of objects moving away from us. But again, I struggle to comprehend how light that has traveled for millions of years can tell us anything about the current state of the sources of that light.
I appreciate anyone who takes the time to help me understand this.