Expanding Universe

[Time_Travel]

No. Electrons are attracted to the nucleus of an atom by an electrostatic force and they keep their distance from the nucleus by the kinetic energy (or angular momentum) of the electron. Those factors are quantized so that an electron will not get closer or further (on average) from a nucleus unless it changes its quantum numbers and jumps energy levels and takes up a different orbital.

 

 

~modest

 

This electrostatic force keeps the nucleus of an atom and electron in orbit. And gravity has no effect on them right?

[modest]

This electrostatic force keeps the nucleus of an atom and electron in orbit.

Yes.

And gravity has no effect on them right?

 

The gravitational force between them is insignificant compared to the quantum forces dictating the size of the atom.

 

~modest

[Southtown]

The gravitational force between them is insignificant compared to the quantum forces dictating the size of the atom.

 

~modest

What about a theory of envelopment, whereby energy is never lost relative to the stage but energy does transfer between the actors relative to their spectrums[!] of existence (beginning and end?)

 

Mutual concepts shall we say between relative perspectives? Beyond reason, inverting into existence by sheer might of the first law.

[Time_Travel]

 

The gravitational force between them is insignificant compared to the quantum forces dictating the size of the atom.

 

~modest

 

So Gravity doesn't exist at quantum levels.

 

But say a group of atoms exhibit Gravity, then at what level does the gravity start to play its role. Because it is the one force that keeps the "UNIVERSE THE WAY IT IS"(actually the way it looks physically)

[Southtown]

Universal expansion should be regarded as unity (external expansion equals internal expansion) with respect to any single frame of reference.

[Southtown]

So Gravity doesn't exist at quantum levels.

Easy to say, hard to observe.

[freeztar]

So Gravity doesn't exist at quantum levels.

 

It exists, but as Modest said, there are other forces present that are much stronger.

 

It's like if you were wearing a metal suit and suspended in the air by the magnet at the end of a crane. Gravity is still pulling you down, but the magnetic force is stronger and keeps you suspended.

 

But say a group of atoms exhibit Gravity, then at what level does the gravity start to play its role. Because it is the one force that keeps the "UNIVERSE THE WAY IT IS"(actually the way it looks physically)

 

The reason gravity is so important on a macroscopic scale is because the microscopic forces act on a very short distance, whereas gravity acts at great distances.

[Southtown]

...in a universe where the speed of light is relative to any and all frames of reference.

[modest]

What about a theory of envelopment, whereby energy is never lost relative to the stage but energy does transfer between the actors relative to their spectrums[!] of existence (beginning and end?)

 

Mutual concepts shall we say between relative perspectives? Beyond reason, inverting into existence by sheer might of the first law.

 

I've never heard of a theory of envelopment and I don't quite follow the description.

 

Universal expansion should be regarded as unity (external expansion equals internal expansion) with respect to any single frame of reference.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by external and internal expansion. Where you say "single frame of reference" I picture a comoving observer (someone who sees the universe isotropically and whose clock keeps cosmic time). The first few paragraphs of each of the following links describe what I would understand as a single frame of reference in a simple expanding cosmos,

• Robertson-Walker Metric
  
• Comoving distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  

~modest

[modest]

If there is space between nucleus of atom and electron, wouldn't that expand too??

 

<...>

 

So Gravity doesn't exist at quantum levels.

 

I probably didn't explain very well. Consider an analogy: if you fill a balloon with air then the surface of the balloon will expand if you add more air. It is a good analogy for the expansion of space. If you put insects on the surface of the balloon then the space between them (or the balloon between them) will expand. Everything you set on the balloon's surface wants to follow the surface of the balloon so that an ant one inch away from another ant will, over time, be two inches away then three inches.

 

But, this does not mean that a single ant will get larger with the expanding balloon. The forces holding the ant together (molecular bonds) overwhelm the 'force' of the rubber balloon expanding under its feet. This is analogous to an atom, molecule, or any composite object in our universe. The atom, like the ant, does not get bigger with expansion.

 

The issue gets all the more complicated because expanding space is a large-scale description of the universe whereby galaxies are following their natural inertial and gravitational paths. The galaxies are drifting apart because of inertia while the 'force' of gravity makes them want to fall back toward one another by,

[math]F=\frac{GM}{r^2}[/math]

and the cosmological constant wants them to fall away from each other by,

[math]F=\frac{c^2 \Lambda r}{3}[/math]

The galaxies are just following the paths that gravity and inertia dictate and over very, very large scales this looks like uniform expansion. Everything is expanding away from everything else. But, at smaller scales inside the galaxies themselves inertia and gravity are more affected by local considerations. Yes, earth is drifting away from that galaxy which is very, very far away (we are expanding away from it). But, closer to home we are orbiting the sun.

 

The same 'forces' of inertia, gravitational attraction, and the cosmological constant dictate earth's orbit of the sun and dictate our 'expansion' away from the very, very distant galaxy. But, at different scales matter is distributed differently. The solar system is *not* homogeneous. The large scale structure of the universe, if you zoom out really far, *is* homogeneous. You wouldn't expect gravity and inertia to cause expansion of the solar system over very short distances yet you would expect it to cause expansion of the cosmos over very large distances because matter is distributed differently at the two different scales.

 

I think it would be helpful to read,

 

Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

If we expanded a gas, the gas will get cooler, since energy is absorbed into the entropy of the expansion. The final expanded gas has less mass/energy (cooler), than what it had when it started, because some of the original energy is lost as irretrievable energy within the entropy. One can't get this energy back, without using some form of work or energy. Left to itself, this energy is lost into entropy. An expanding universe is losing useful mass-energy since more and more becomes irretrievable as entropy.

 

The red shift reflects the absorption of energy into entropy. Going from blue to red, lowers the amount of useful energy that is left over.

 

Things that approach us, blue shift occurs because the observed system is similar to a compression in distance and time, where the entropy lowers and energy is given off. The red gains energy so we see a blue shift which has more available energy. What had been irretrievable was returned.

 

Expansion of space-time also reflects increasing entropy and irretrievable energy. If we had something moving near C and we slowed it down, its relativistic mass will decrease and energy will be released. But we don't see energy being released from expanding space-time, as relativistic mass lowers. This seems to imply that entropy is driving this and absorbing the energy, as well as the energy in the red shift. Expanded space-time has more degrees of freedom for entropy and reflects the second law.

 

If we kept on entropy expanding the universe, as well as increasing entropy within any given space-time reference, eventually the useful energy of the universe will all become irretrievable. Since there is no available energy for more entropy, entropy will reach a limit, since it can't increase without energy. The second law would no longer apply, since there is no energy to increase entropy any further. Without mass-energy there is also nothing in the empty universe that allows us to define entropy, since what are the degrees of freedom of nothing? Without entropy, the irretrievable, is retrieved and mass-energy returns. All the mass-energy with zero degrees of freedom is a point. The second law then returns to increase degrees of freedom.

[Southtown]

I've never heard of a theory of envelopment

Sorry it was meant to be an abstract descriptor.

 

and I don't quite follow the description.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by external and internal expansion. Where you say "single frame of reference" I picture a comoving observer (someone who sees the universe isotropically and whose clock keeps cosmic time).

Time relative to what?

 

The first few paragraphs of each of the following links describe what I would understand as a single frame of reference in a simple expanding cosmos,

• Robertson-Walker Metric
  
• Comoving distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  

~modest

I'll check those out in time I hope.

 

But let me expand upon my concept of an entity as those systems which are closed relative to the vector of axes orthogonal to infinity??

[Southtown]

CHAOS goddamnit lol

[Idiot]

If nothing existed before the big bang, and something existed after the big bang, and if all matter and the laws of physics were created just a billionth(ish) of a second after the BB. Doesn't this require "time' to be pre-existing and affecting throughout the process? And if E really does equal mc2 and mass and or energy and or acceleration warps time then shouldn't mass etc also pre-exist the BB ?

[Time_Travel]

<...>

 

 

 

I probably didn't explain very well. Consider an analogy: if you fill a balloon with air then the surface of the balloon will expand if you add more air. It is a good analogy for the expansion of space. If you put insects on the surface of the balloon then the space between them (or the balloon between them) will expand. Everything you set on the balloon's surface wants to follow the surface of the balloon so that an ant one inch away from another ant will, over time, be two inches away then three inches.

 

But, this does not mean that a single ant will get larger with the expanding balloon. The forces holding the ant together (molecular bonds) overwhelm the 'force' of the rubber balloon expanding under its feet. This is analogous to an atom, molecule, or any composite object in our universe. The atom, like the ant, does not get bigger with expansion.

 

The issue gets all the more complicated because expanding space is a large-scale description of the universe whereby galaxies are following their natural inertial and gravitational paths. The galaxies are drifting apart because of inertia while the 'force' of gravity makes them want to fall back toward one another by,

[math]F=\frac{GM}{r^2}[/math]

and the cosmological constant wants them to fall away from each other by,

[math]F=\frac{c^2 \Lambda r}{3}[/math]

The galaxies are just following the paths that gravity and inertia dictate and over very, very large scales this looks like uniform expansion. Everything is expanding away from everything else. But, at smaller scales inside the galaxies themselves inertia and gravity are more affected by local considerations. Yes, earth is drifting away from that galaxy which is very, very far away (we are expanding away from it). But, closer to home we are orbiting the sun.

 

The same 'forces' of inertia, gravitational attraction, and the cosmological constant dictate earth's orbit of the sun and dictate our 'expansion' away from the very, very distant galaxy. But, at different scales matter is distributed differently. The solar system is *not* homogeneous. The large scale structure of the universe, if you zoom out really far, *is* homogeneous. You wouldn't expect gravity and inertia to cause expansion of the solar system over very short distances yet you would expect it to cause expansion of the cosmos over very large distances because matter is distributed differently at the two different scales.

 

I think it would be helpful to read,

 

Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

 

That's a neat explanation. Most of the queries regarding the expansion of Universe is understood.

 

So back then, before Big Bang this all theory suggests that Gravity was way much stronger than it was today. And it somehow got loosened its grip? and this caused the expansion of Space or probably even the BB????

[modest]

...Where you say "single frame of reference" I picture a comoving observer (someone who sees the universe isotropically and whose clock keeps cosmic time).

Time relative to what?

 

Sorry for the delay in responding. The holidays have conspired to harass me thoroughly.

 

Cosmic time is relative to the Hubble flow.

 

Specifically, if you are a clock and notice yourself in an area of gravitational potential about equal to the universe on average and also notice that the cosmic background radiation is receding at an equal velocity in every direction then you are a cosmic clock, and you keep cosmic time. While such clocks probably fancy themselves somewhat special, in fact, the laws of physics are the same for every clock in the universe—it's just that cosmic clocks all keep the same cosmic time which is useful to cosmology.

 

Such a clock would say that the universe is 13.7 billion years since the big bang (assuming it has been running since then). A clock in a deep gravity well or another which has a very high peculiar velocity would consider the universe to be a bit younger.

 

Wiki's description is... rather sparse,

 

Cosmic time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

;)

 

Perhaps nothing is made. Perhaps it simply is, has been, will always be there. A clock without a craftsman :(

 

~modest

[Southtown]

Sorry for the delay in responding. The holidays have conspired to harass me thoroughly.

I understand. =)

 

I was trying to question the synchronicity between clocks. How can two clocks share the same frame absolutely?

 

 

The universe may appear to expand when looking outwardly, but what about inwardly?

 

 

Well here it is, for instance. Nice link by the way.

Originally Posted by Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics

Although SR emphasises that all observers should be treated equally, in cosmology the co-moving observers are more equal than others: anyone who presumes to move relative to them will get a distorted view of the universe in which the observer's direction of motion relative to the co-movers will pick out a special direction in space.

 

 

I think there is reciprocity between the "special direction in space" of any two interacting objects. Don't ask me about three, I might snap.