Oh honey, let me break it down for you. Quantized redshifts basically tell us the amount by which light from galaxies has been stretched as the universe expands. It's like a cosmic measuring tape showing us how the universe has grown. Scientists use this info to track the expansion of the universe and figure out its age and fate.
Edwin Hubble's groundbreaking discoveries were made at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California. It was here, in the 1920s, that he observed distant galaxies and established the relationship between their redshifts and distances, leading to the formulation of Hubble's Law. This work fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe, demonstrating its expansion.
The object is moving away from the observer.
cons quasars have have large red shift that suggest they are far away as distant galexies some quazars with very high redshifts appear to be interacting with other galexies that have lesser redshift which would suggest that quazars have ann in trensic redshift pros its perfect evidence to show that the universe is expanding
Edwin Hubble is the founder of the Big Bang theory, which describes the origin and evolution of the universe. His observations of galaxies and their redshifts led to the formulation of Hubble's Law, demonstrating that the universe is expanding. This groundbreaking work provided strong evidence for the idea that the universe began from a hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
Scientists estimate the age of the universe and the Big Bang by studying the cosmic microwave background radiation, known as the afterglow of the Big Bang. By analyzing the temperature fluctuations in this radiation, researchers can determine the age of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old.
Quasars typically have large redshifts, which indicate that they are moving away from us at high speeds. This redshift is due to the expansion of the universe and can help astronomers determine the distance and age of quasars.
Perhaps in the future astronomers will do all the redshifts of the 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
Yes, very large redshifts.
No, because it will be impossible for astronomers to get all 100 billion redshifts for all 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
It is not possible to list all designations and redshifts of all 100 billion galaxies (cseligman.com/text/atlas/pgc00.htm)
The spectral lines of galaxies are redshifted, indicating that they are moving away from Earth. This redshift is typically a result of the expansion of the universe, causing galaxies to move further apart.
As the universe expands, the space between galaxies also expands, causing their light to stretch out as it travels through this expanding space. This stretching of light waves results in redshift, where the wavelength of light increases, shifting it towards the red end of the spectrum.
Edwin Hubble compared the distances to galaxies (based on their brightness) and their redshifts (due to the Doppler effect) to discover the expansion of the Universe. By finding a relationship between these two quantities (dubbed Hubble's Law), he provided evidence that the Universe is expanding.
No. We do not have time to make so many measurements.
Yes. To image, catalog, and calculate the redshift of each galaxy individually would take an extremely long time. In order to complete the work in 100 years we would need to measure redshifts at a rate of more than 30 galaxies per second.
have wavelengths that are longer than normal:)
Edwin Hubble showed that galaxies exist and he correlated galaxies to redshifts.However, Hubble did not conclude that the redshift indicates the universe is expanding. Unfortunately, lesser Physicists have rushed to the conclusion that the Universe is expanding. Much of tthis is because Einstein's Relativity Equations only had solutions for expansion or contraction. of the two, Lemaitre called for expansion in his Big Bang, and this is the situation today.Here is Hubble's position from an article:http://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.htmlHubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansionexists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).The redshift is still an unrecognized principle of nature, The redshift is an indicator of Continuity, the balance between the centrifugal forces and the centripetal forces. Gravity potential energy gives the centripetal force and the vector energy gives the centrifugal force. Now some physicists deny the existence of centrifugal force. The fact is there is a centrifugal fforce and it is produced by the so-called "Dark Energy", which those same physicists affirm.Hubble is correct, the Universe is not expanding and the redshift is no longer an unrecognized principle in nature, it is the "Fine Structure 'Constant' of matter, v/c is the redshift = square-root(GM/rc2).