Expanding matter?

[Dark Mind]

Another random musing of a mind in search knowledge. Okay, I read somewhere in a book that our universe is expanding (imagine that...:D), but not only in the typical speeding away from the center of the Universe due to the Big Bang. I read that our universe is physically expanding, you know, growing larger. I read that our entire Univers was the size of what we perceive a bowling ball to be at 8.7E^ -24729078 seconds (not actual figure, just an example, I'll find the book eventually and put a direct quote that encompasses this.) And I was wondering if this is or could be true, since (according to the laws of physics) matter can neither be created nor destroyed just changed/altered (can't bring matter into the universe and can't take it out- creation of anti-matter??? oh well...) I was then wondering if it was just the size of the atoms that was increasing. I don't know, I'm in need of help, please provide. :eek: :eek: :eek: (In essence, according to this theory 5 seconds ago we may have been the size of what a pin looks like now, but since all matter in the universe is expanding/growing/enlarging/whatever we are now 100 times the size of what Mount Everest was 5 seconds ago and since everything is growing at the ame proportional rate we don't notice any difference. If I confused you, don't feel left out;), I'm in the same boat as you.

[infamous]

I was then wondering if it was just the size of the atoms that was increasing. .

 

I think you have the concept backwards Dark Mind. If however you view it from a perspective of matter shrinking, this would be the more likely effect. Not that I hold to this notion mind you, but if you could imagine matter shrinking it would appear the same as the space between particles enlarging. Hope this helps.

[Dark Mind]

Not... really...

 

I can picture the example perfectly, but according to the book (I'm gonna find it eventually...) matter is growing and the Universe is expanding, we're just expanding quicker than we are growing... if that makes sense.

 

*Now I know it's around here somewhere...*

[Erasmus00]

Not... really...

 

I can picture the example perfectly, but according to the book (I'm gonna find it eventually...) matter is growing and the Universe is expanding, we're just expanding quicker than we are growing... if that makes sense.

 

*Now I know it's around here somewhere...*

 

Standard model holds that the universe is indeed expanding, but not in the way you suggest. Atoms stay the same size, as does the Earth. Space is what is expanding, not matter.

-Will

[infamous]

Standard model holds that the universe is indeed expanding, but not in the way you suggest. Atoms stay the same size, as does the Earth. Space is what is expanding, not matter.

-Will

Agreed; But what about the portion of matter scientists talk about as comprising the greater volume of it's structure? How many times have you heard the quote? "Matter is comprised mostly of space." Or are we talking about two different kinds of space here? And what makes the one different from the other? If space outside the proton is expanding, why is the space inside the proton not doing so also? I'll assume that the answer is going to go something like this; "Because of the electrical forces within matter, the volume of it's spherical orbital will remain the same." Would that be a correct assumption or is there another reason?...........Infy

[Qfwfq]

Uhm, no, it's meant at cosmological scales, at only which the arguments are valid. In a hunk of iron or a stone, other interactions dominate and, even on astronomical scales at which only gravity is relevant AFAWK, the dynamics are quite different from the large scale which the standard model of cosmology describes.

[InfiniteNow]

How many times have you heard the quote? "Matter is comprised mostly of space."

The count must be scientifically noted it's so high, however, my take is that this is just a visual tool to assist in understanding. Truth is, it's difficult to really *know* what's going on at such small scales. I'm thinking wave/particle complimentarity here...

 

Or are we talking about two different kinds of space here?

I would vote, no. I do like, though, new ideas being presented to help me clarify my own thoughts and inspire new answers. :beer:

[infamous]

The count must be scientifically noted it's so high, however, my take is that this is just a visual tool to assist in understanding. Truth is, it's difficult to really *know* what's going on at such small scales. I'm thinking wave/particle complimentarity here...

 

 

I would vote, no.

That makes two of us........ The question thus remains; If the space inside the proton is the same as outside, why is one expanding and not the other?

 

 

I do like, though, new ideas being presented to help me clarify my own thoughts and inspire new answers. :beer:

Indeed, and this should be the goal of this forum, to inspire new and creative thought.

 

..............................Infy

[Buffy]

That makes two of us........ The question thus remains; If the space inside the proton is the same as outside, why is one expanding and not the other?

Please note: Space is the absence of anything. If Nothing is "expanding" inside of something, there's Nothing there to push the something its inside of out! There's certainly something to push against, but Nothing is doing the pushing!

 

Another way to think of it is that the Nothing is passing right through the something as it expands.

 

The key thing that's hard to grok is that we're so used to "things expanding" meaning there's physical substances that we know push and get pushed by that expansion, but the "expansion of Nothing" doesn't work that way, and fallacies crop up if you try to think of it as air being blown into a balloon.

 

What this means is that space can be expanding everywhere, but it doesn't have anything to do with what's happening with the matter itself, but the matter IS moving *along with* the space its local to. Not that the expansion is pushing anything, it just represents "relative apparent momentum" in relation to distant objects.

 

Not as bad as a chocolate truffle,

Buffy

[infamous]

Please note: Space is the absence of anything. If Nothing is "expanding" inside of something, there's Nothing there to push the something its inside of out! There's certainly something to push against, but Nothing is doing the pushing!

 

To begin, I respect the position you're taking here and have the highest regard for the intellect you constantly display here at Hypography. If it appears like I'm arguing, it's not because I'm disagreeing with your interpretation, it's only because I may be confused. Let me explain;

 

My understanding of cosmological expansion has always been, according to what I've read, that space itself is expanding. This interpretation discribes an expansion of the fabric of space/time and not just a mutual scattering of the matter contained within it. If matter is only flying apart, one could refer to space as nothing more than the nothingness within which matter exists. On the other hand, I have often read that without the energy of the Big Bang, space itself would not exist.

 

Maybe I've been misled, and truly,that would not surprise me at all. I fear that I have misinterpreted many things and will no doubt, find myself doing so again from time to time.

 

In summary; To the best of my understanding, if space is infinite, then I could accept it as just nothingness. However, if it is closed, I submit that it would appear to have substance and should be defined as something more than just nothingness. If the later is the case, then one could assume the expansion of the fabric would apply to both the space inside the proton as well as on the outside. Because experimental evidence has yet to determine whether space is bounded or infinite, one would have to argue that the verdict is still out and open to question..............................Infy

[Buffy]

My understanding of cosmological expansion has always been, according to what I've read, that space itself is expanding. This interpretation discribes an expansion of the fabric of space/time and not just a mutual scattering of the matter contained within it.

"Fabric of space/time" is such a connotive term. And misleadingly connotative at that!

 

Fabric's a "thing" right? So its led you to the conclusion:

if space is infinite, then I could accept it as just nothingness. However, if it is closed, I submit that it would appear to have substance and should be defined as something more than just nothingness.

Why does it? Is there something you can pin down as to why you've come to this conclusion?

 

Contrarily, Einstein is quoted as saying:

Space-time does not claim existence in its own right, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field.

So according to Uncle Albert, there's nothing physical pushing or pulling, its the dimensions that are "expanding." If things moved away from eachother within a reference frame, it would violate Newton's Laws of Motion and Conservation of Energy.

 

All heck would break loose.

 

So, to try to clarify a bit further:

If matter is only flying apart, one could refer to space as nothing more than the nothingness within which matter exists. On the other hand, I have often read that without the energy of the Big Bang, space itself would not exist.

Sure, because without the bang there would be no space! And no time! But "space" is a great term for this because the colloquial implication is that its "absense of stuff" so if it "expands" what you're expanding is the walls or other measures that contain some reference frame, but unless you apply some energy directly, nothing is going to "move."

If the later is the case, then one could assume the expansion of the fabric would apply to both the space inside the proton as well as on the outside.

It does, but within a local reference frame, you need energy to move stuff. Note that you are talking still about the "space expanding" which implies that the protons or quarks or however far down you want to go, are *not* expanding, so that any such expansion would be observable directly and would require energy to avoid violation of physical laws.

 

Now when you get out to Cosmological Scales, the separation is indeed *related* to the "momentum" imparted by the big bang, and stuff is "moving away from everything else without moving itself." Momentum is an awful term here, because it gets interpreted as "movement" and what we're seeing is expansion not only of distances between objects but expansion of time, which gets really weird to think about.

 

Because experimental evidence has yet to determine whether space is bounded or infinite, one would have to argue that the verdict is still out and open to question...

Can you talk a bit more about why you think that closure of the universe has any implications here at all? Its an interesting idea, because if you follow your argument, evidence that space-time has physicality would then prove closure! That sure would save a lot of time in figuring out the nature of the universe! Unfortunately I think your premise is wrong, but I would like to hear why you think its right.

 

Loving your questions,

Buffy

[niin]

Another way to think of it is that the Nothing is passing right through the something as it expands.

 

What this means is that space can be expanding everywhere, but it doesn't have anything to do with what's happening with the matter itself, but the matter IS moving *along with* the space its local to. Not that the expansion is pushing anything, it just represents "relative apparent momentum" in relation to distant objects.

 

I can not make any sense of what you are saying.

Should gravity not move everything together then.

If everything is moving apart, something must be doing something to prevent gravity from collecting everything in a big pile.

There would have to be an opposing force.

Is it not because the universe (space) is expanding?

 

You say space has nothing to do with matter, then you say the matter is moving along with it.

Why is it moving along with space again?

 

Now when you get out to Cosmological Scales, the separation is indeed *related* to the "momentum" imparted by the big bang, and stuff is "moving away from everything else without moving itself.

 

"related" is kind of vague. What do you mean?

Are you saying that the big bang is pushing stuff somehow? Like an explosion?

The expansion on cosmological scales are speeding up right?

Why is the momentum being imparted by the big bang getting bigger then?

[infamous]

 

Can you talk a bit more about why you think that closure of the universe has any implications here at all? Its an interesting idea, because if you follow your argument, evidence that space-time has physicality would then prove closure!

That might be a good foundation from which to build upon my friend. But first, let's limit our study to just the closed or open positions, no multivirse or foam theories considered at this juncture.

 

The idea first came to me after much thinking about the word 'Nothing'. Consider the character of this word for a moment. Then apply it to how we understand the nature of the space within our own universe. If the universe is bounded, then what lies outside can more perfectly be described as nothingness. However, the space contained within supports at least 4 dimensions and I believe this difference is considerably more than just a play on words. The space we call our universe was created and is maintained by an energy field which support it's very existence. Without this field, space itself could not exist as we members of this universe experience it. I therefore submit that nothingness and space are two different things.

 

 

That sure would save a lot of time in figuring out the nature of the universe! Unfortunately I think your premise is wrong, but I would like to hear why you think its right.

Quite possibly I could be wrong, but more precisely, I'm positive that I'm Unsure.

 

Loving your questions,

Buffy

Loving your answers..............................Infy

[Buffy]

Should gravity not move everything together then.If everything is moving apart, something must be doing something to prevent gravity from collecting everything in a big pile.

It is trying to make a big pile as best it can! But things are "moving" apart due to expansion which was imparted by the big bang as well as Dark Energy which is why its speeding up, although for simplicity we've avoided talking about that so far in this thread.

Again, There would have to be an opposing force.

Is it not because the universe (space) is expanding?

 

You say space has nothing to do with matter, then you say the matter is moving along with it. Why is it moving along with space again?

Space is expanding.

 

Its really hard to get this because you have no way to relate to it physically. Say you and a friend are standing on a football field. Normally in order to increase the distance between the two of you, one of you has to use energy to move yourself in a direction for a distance on the field. You expend one donut to move 10 yards (wouldn't that be nice!).

 

But what if the field was constantly expanding. You and your friend would stay in the same place, expending no additional energy, but the distance between you would be getting bigger. In addition, its the field that's expanding, and your bodies wouldn't be getting bigger. The only thing you need is an initial bang to get the field to start expanding.

 

But note this is not an "explosion" its an "expansion". If it was an exposive device in the middle of the field that went off, it would impart energy to you, and would move you across the field. Moreover, the explosion would have an obvious "center" and from observation of other objects moving away, you'd be able to triangulate that center. But with expansion, there's no center, every thing is moving away from everything else at the same rate

 

To clarify this, if your friend and you were standing on the same side of an explosion and a second friend was standing on the opposite side of the explosion, you'd be moving away from that second friend twice as fast as your first friend who was on the same side of the explosion because for the second friend, the relative effect of the force is doubled. If its an expansion on the other hand, then you all move away from each other at the same rate (of accelleration to be precise) no matter which direction you're in. There is no center.

 

This distinction between expansion and explosion is subtle because there are so many apparent similarities, but more importantly, we don't have any physical experience that is "expansion" and so most people simply rely on the analogy to an "explosion" which isn't at all the same.

The expansion on cosmological scales are speeding up right? Why is the momentum being imparted by the big bang getting bigger then?

This speeding up is Dark Energy. At small scales, its relatively weak, so its not powerful enough to counteract the size of atoms for example and make us bigger. Its not even powerful enough to over power gravity when big masses are close enough, so it does not rip appart solar systems or even galaxies, but its everywhere so at the largest scales, where gravity starts to get very weak (due to the inverse square law that applies to it) it can start to overpower gravity and push whole galaxy clusters away from each other.

 

This adds to the aparent rate of expansion, but the expansion itself is where most of the relative movement comes from, which is why its taken until just recently to be able to even measure the effect of Dark Energy.

 

Not easily grokable, but worth trying,

Buffy

[Buffy]

But first, let's limit our study to just the closed or open positions, no multivirse or foam theories considered at this juncture.

 

If the universe is bounded, then what lies outside can more perfectly be described as nothingness....

You just violated your restriction on the discussion: If there's no "multiverse" there is no *outside*.

The space we call our universe was created and is maintained by an energy field which support it's very existence. Without this field, space itself could not exist as we members of this universe experience it.

...but I'll play along: so there's an "energy field". Energy fields do not have to consist of matter, in fact the very name implies that they don't!

 

Now there has been discussion of some sort of "fabric" (which most physicists disclaim, see Albert's quote above), and all matter is some how "stuck" to it. "Aether" theories are somewhat similar, but they use hydrodynamics as their analogical underpinning. Stuff is stuck to the fabric or pushed by the aether, so it should "grow" along with the "expansion."

 

I do understand this concept, but its not supported by the current data. You're at the point of speculating an alternate theory which is not keeping up with reality and you've run into a self-made contradiction:

1. Assume there is a fabric or Aether
   
2. All matter is tied to it
   
3. The fabric/aether is expanding
   
4. Therefore all matter should expand
   
5. But matter is not expanding while space between it is
   

SO: The possible conclusions

1. Some additional force is pushing matter off its link to the fabric, or
   
2. There is no fabric

Which do you want to choose and why?

I therefore submit that nothingness and space are two different things.

I don't have a problem with that, but I do seem to define the terms differently than you! I've actually been trying to make the point all along here that our *definitions* get in our way of understanding because they are so limited and subject to misinterpretation. That's why formulating common views is so difficult: its a process of inventing new language that we all understand that more accurately represents what we view as reality.

Quite possibly I could be wrong, but more precisely, I'm positive that I'm Unsure.

Being "wrong" is impossible here. Learning enough so that your understanding accurately describes and predicts reality is the only goal, and *none* of us can say we do that perfectly!

 

Analyzing inconsistency,

Buffy

[niin]

It is trying to make a big pile as best it can! But things are "moving" apart due to expansion which was imparted by the big bang as well as Dark Energy

...

This adds to the aparent rate of expansion, but the expansion itself is where most of the relative movement comes from, which is why its taken until just recently to be able to even measure the effect of Dark Energy.

I think that unless the expansion is physically pushing us, it should have no effect on our momentum at this time.

I can believe, that we got a momentum imparted by the big bang, but the principle of conservation of momentum say, that unless a force act on the system the momentum is constant.

 

Say you and a friend are standing on a football field. Normally in order to increase the distance between the two of you, one of you has to use energy to move yourself in a direction for a distance on the field. You expend one donut to move 10 yards (wouldn't that be nice!).

 

But what if the field was constantly expanding. You and your friend would stay in the same place, expending no additional energy, but the distance between you would be getting bigger.

But that would be because the field was imparting momentum to us....pushing us along with the expansion.

You said that space did not push us. if we use your analogy. The field would just expand under us. If two flag was put in the ground they would move further away from both of us as the field expanded. The distance between me and my friend would stay the same.

[Buffy]

I think that unless the expansion is physically pushing us, it should have no effect on our momentum at this time.

I can believe, that we got a momentum imparted by the big bang, but the principle of conservation of momentum say, that unless a force act on the system the momentum is constant.

But this is *exactly* why I put quotes around the word "momentum": its *apparent* not *actual* relative motion. Energy application is required for the former, but not for the latter.

But that would be because the field was imparting momentum to us....pushing us along with the expansion.

You said that space did not push us.

"Pushing" implies application of energy, and it is not applying any energy to us. There's no energy there, and there's nothing to push on us. This analogy is imperfect because it allows you to keep thinking about space as some sort of physical object that we're physically attached to, and space is really just the "distance between two objects." That distance is increasing because the whole universe is expanding and everything moves along with that expansion because it always has. That is *sort of* like momentum or inertia because it looks kind of the same, but its not momentum or inertia, its expansion which is a different thing. The use of these terms is there only to help you understand that its similar in that Newton said "things that move continue to move" which is true insofar as expansion causes "aparent motion": it looks like motion, but its expansion.

 

The words *so* get in the way, when you're trying to describe something that you can't physically experience:

if we use your analogy. The field would just expand under us. If two flag was put in the ground they would move further away from both of us as the field expanded. The distance between me and my friend would stay the same.

Only if you and your friend were standing right next to each other, holding hands! Because you're really close, the expansion does not affect you that much--you're too close for its effects to be very measurable--and gravity--holding hands--can completely overpower it. Stand far enough away from your friend and she and the flags will all move away from you at a rate proportional to their distance from you...

 

Bottom line is that "expansion" is not "motion" and while we use common terms for both, they differ in extremely important but counter-intuitive ways. The reason its counter-intuitive is that nothing here on earth that we can experience is "expansion" so its just plain weird, which makes it easy to say its illogical. But its quite logical once you get the definitions and seems to work exactly like we expect it to out there in the universe.

 

More like a whoosh than a bang,

Buffy