Expansion Methods

[InfiniteNow]

Isin't ether an 'outdated' concept?

 

Yeah, my first thought was Michelson/Morley, but thought the poster may have had a different idea in mind... ;)

[Bombadil]

My mistake I meant to say others not ethers.;)

How would a non-uniform expansion violate any of the laws of physics and what laws of physics would it violate.

[Boerseun]

Quite true and acceptable but one thing keeps tugging at my curiosity. Understand, I'm not proposing that I necessarily agree with the McCutcheon expanding material theory for gravity. In truth, I find this theory very hard to justify on a purely logical bases. Nevertheless, there remains a question about the universal expansion of space which I can't seem to rationalize. I think it fair to assume that most of us agree that space is expanding. Starting with this assumption as a bases for further thought, how can we explain all of surrounding space to be expanding and not the space within material objects. Personally, I think the basic constituents of matter can be characterized as little more than a geometric organization of space itself. This point of view may not conform to everyones ideal perception. Nevertheless, it is true that charge, spin, and mass are involved but the proton, is in volume, mostly space. If the universal space around us is expanding, why is the space within the proton itself not also expanding. Until someone can explain this to me, I must assume that we still don't have a good understanding for what the idea really means; The Universal Expansion of Space............Infy

Well, I've been wondering about it as well. And what I came up with, is the following:

 

What Hubble saw, happens on an intergalactic level. Galaxies are streaming away from each other in what is termed the "Hubble flow". This implies that they used to be at one point in earlier times. Therefore, the "Big Bang".

But locally, stuff tend to stay together. Galaxies don't 'swell out' as the space inside them expands. Galaxies stay intact, but they stream away from each other. Now, if space itself is expanding, then there must be a cut-off point when you travel from inside one galaxy to another. You simply have to be in a region that's not expanding, and eventually you have to 'cross' a line into a realm where space all of a sudden starts expanding.

This implies something of the nature of space, as if space is 'something'. This, of course, brings us back to the concept of the 'ether', which has been shown to be false. Simply put, space is nothing, quite literally the 'absence of stuff'. Space is simply the distance between two 'things'. And galaxies are held together by gravity, but are flying away from each other. So, the distance between 'stuff' inside galaxies stays the same, but the distance between 'stuff' in one galaxy and 'stuff' in another galaxy is increasing.

 

I could probably explain this better, but if 'space' was expanding, it would imply certain attributes to what we might perceive as 'space', which would logically bring us back to 'ether'. Meantime, it's simply the distances that's increasing between things not gravitationally bound (seperate clusters of galaxies) as opposed to things that are gravitationally bound, i.e. the constituent matter of galaxies.

 

In other words, if this is indeed the case, then 'space' is not expanding per se, because after all, 'nothing' can't expand, because there is 'nothing' to measure. If it was expanding, then we should be able to measure it locally; unless there is indeed a transition zone between non-expanding space inside galaxies, and the expanding space between galaxies. And what would cause such a zone to exist?

 

This is my personal view on the matter, and I could be mistaken. But I don't see how you can expand 'nothingness'. What we see as the Hubble flow is simply the distance between clumps of matter (galaxies) increasing - the 'space', or the attributes and qualities of the 'nothingness' in between them, should stay perfectly constant, because it has no attributes and/or qualities to begin with.

 

I'm probably barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest, and also most likely advertising my ignorance, but that's the way I see it.

[Farsight]

I've got a mental model that says mass/energy is stress. (Stress is the same as pressure, and you have to multiply by a volume to get the units right). I'm not quite sure what this stress is stressing, but I'll say it's space, which gives me a kind of aether.

 

My mental model also says gravity is some kind of orthogonal tension, tension being negative stress, such that a gravitational field is a tension gradient. There is no time in my mental model, so you have to take the derivative of spacetime curvature.

 

Now if I think about a distribution of masses like this ... ... I have a series of stress points separated by tension. The tension isn't quite uniform, so the masses collapse under gravity leaving us something like this . . where the tension has concentrated at either end, so it's less in the middle. So the space in the middle is under less tension, so it gets bigger. So if you had a universe filled with gas collapsing into galaxies, the gaps between them get bigger.

 

All this is a little rough and ready, but it somehow feels "right" enough for me to want to want to share it.

[infamous]

 

This is my personal view on the matter, and I could be mistaken. But I don't see how you can expand 'nothingness'. What we see as the Hubble flow is simply the distance between clumps of matter (galaxies) increasing - the 'space', or the attributes and qualities of the 'nothingness' in between them, should stay perfectly constant, because it has no attributes and/or qualities to begin with.

Excellent points all my friend. We nevertheless continue to hear from the scientific community this term they refer to as Spatial Expansion. If this concept actually defines the act of space expanding outward from itself, then why would the space within the atomic structure be mutually exclusive from this process? In my minds logic, your discription may be more accurate Boerseun because if space itself is expanding, then so also could one surmise, the volume within individual particles is doing the same.......................Infy

[HydrogenBond]

A simple way to explain expansion, without complex geometry considerations, is that the original primordial atom initially subdivides into fragments before inflation. This situation is no longer a single big bomb but umpteen little bombs each ready to inflate at the same time. The expansion pattern would be similar to what we observe, with the outer universe moving faster, since it will experinence the outward pressure waves from the expansions within the interior. The interior chucks will see radial pressure waves, coming it, that slow them down. This will also help contain the inflating matter and add a shear spin, for the formation of galaxies from these chunks.

 

The question may be why would the primordial atom subdivide before inflation? One simple answer is cooling and a phase change. In other words, the original matter from the BB expansion is assumed to be composed, initially, of limiting superparticles that no longer exist except maybe in particle accelerators. When these particle cool, because they contain so much mass/energy value, they subdivide into smaller quanta, with the total number of particles increasing so it is in equilibrium with the lower temperature. The primordial atom started as a very small number of super particles. Cooling changed the phase into more particles causing the primordial atom to subdivide.

 

The phase change into more particles implies the entropy of the system increased. This results in a chicken or the egg paradox. Did an entropy potential cause the absorption of heat needed to change phase? Or did the radiate heat provide energy to drive the entropy subdivision?

[infamous]

This will also help contain the inflating matter and add a shear spin, for the formation of galaxies from these chunks.

So check me on this if I don't understand. What you're saying is that the expansion has little difference than that of an ordinary terrestrial explosion. And that in essence, actual space itself is not really expanding, only the debris field within it?..................................Infy

[HydrogenBond]

I used the big bomb as a visual tool. The main point is an initial breakup of the primordial atom before inflation. After that the current theories of space-time expansion apply. The difference is that instead of only one geometric center there is this plus many sub-centers. The sub-centers do the same thing as elaborate geometry using only simple geometry. But it also adds something extra, connected to energy pressure waves stemming from many point sources, that add pressure and shear to the inflating/material expanding point centers. This allows galaxies to form quickly, per the observed astral data.

[infamous]

I used the big bomb as a visual tool. The main point is an initial breakup of the primordial atom before inflation. After that

Unfortunately my friend, I failed to get the answer to my question. At any rate, here is a discription that Wikipedia gave for spatial expansion:

 

Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

I believe that this definition gives credit to what is called the metric of space/time. This view contends that space/time itself is expanding. To bring up my former question; If the metric of space/time is expanding, why is it mutually exclusive from the volume of space within atomic structure?

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

[Boerseun]

Anybody ever considered that we might have the cat by the tail with an inflating universe?

 

Consider:

 

The visible 'Universe' is a hundred units in diameter, as of... *now*. It is expanding, so the distance between Galaxy A and Galaxy B, which is, say, ten units, will be eleven units in ten minutes. But the two galaxies each have a diameter of, lets say, one unit. In ten minutes, they will be more distant, but still the same size, one unit. If it was the metric that was expanding, in other words, the actual, physical space, then rulers and measuring rods would have 'expanded' as well, and the distance between the galaxies would have stayed ten units. Or, if you had access to a magical measuring rod that stayed the same size, the seperation between A and B would be eleven units, but the diameter of A and B would now be 1.1 units.

 

I'm all for the Big Bang and the Hubble shift etc., but isn't assigning "inflation" to the metric a knee-jerk reaction for the observed evidence, where we try to squeeze observed phenomena into the only reference we have?

 

We understand stuff to contract or expand, it's an easily understandable phenomenon that can be reduced to our own experience on Earth. The surface of a soccer ball expands as it inflates. Stuff becomes bigger, the raisins in your loaf grow distant as the loaf rises. But are we sure that there's no other explanation for the frequency shift as observed by Hubble?

Do we know enough about the properties of space to say with confidence that it will allow photons to be transmitted unmolested over billions of light-years of space?

 

Because if we say the metric is expanding, a meter on Earth will stay a meter, regardless. It will actually grow bigger and bigger every passing second, but it won't be measurable because the observer is also becoming bigger. But the distance between the coffee mug and the computer screen will stay the same, because both are expanding at the same rate that space is expanding. Which means, if brought to galactic levels, that galaxies will move away from each other through the Hubble flow, whilst growing bigger at the same time. So the relative distances between them will stay exactly the same, seeing as its the metric that's expanding. And the very same metric is what we use to measure the distance between atom A and atom B.

 

If space is expanding without matter expanding at the same rate, it could quite easily be tested, even on our scale, I guess.

 

I've prolly screwed this up good and solid, but it's an interesting notion, nonetheless.

[infamous]

 

Because if we say the metric is expanding, a meter on Earth will stay a meter, regardless. It will actually grow bigger and bigger every passing second, but it won't be measurable because the observer is also becoming bigger. But the distance between the coffee mug and the computer screen will stay the same, because both are expanding at the same rate that space is expanding.

This gives me a thought Boerseun. Imagine taking a balloon half filled and drawing two circles on it separated by a few inchs or so. Now, slowly inflat the balloon while watching both circles. You will see that not only does the size of each circle grow in size but also the distance between them. Interesting no??? If this exercise is consistent with the expansion of the space/time metric, then maybe there is something to McCutcheon's theroy after all. Needless to say, scientific authority has already considered this and most certainly has an answer why his theory is inappropriate to explain present observation. Taking our balloon experiment into context, and assuming that the metric expands in a similiar manner, I'll ask again. Why is the expansion of the space/time metric mutually exclusive from the volume of the atomic structure????...........................Infy

[ronthepon]

Perhaps we could say that the much stronger forces that exist at the smaller levels would dominate to a large extent.

 

Further with the screwed up notions of Boerseun, one cool observation that would result that the apparent velocity of light would finally reduce.

Because light will travel the same distance in the same time.

[Buffy]

Steve is probably chuckling pretty hard now as you're all sounding very McCutcheonesque! :hihi:

 

Remember folks, that the universe is expanding on the *time* dimension! :) Your ruler won't help there! The way we poor trapped 3-d beings perceive it is as distance increasing in a very normal manner due to the relative speed/direction of the objects. The weirdness only comes in the existence of the Cosmological Principle, and the fact that the really far stuff can move so fast that it passes the Hubble Limit. The distances all make sense, but the "apparent speed" incorporates the expansion so it looks impossibly fast: the stuff past the Hubble Limit are in essense "moving away" from us faster than c. There are some that find problems with expansion because they say that this is proof that it "violates Relativity" which it does not.

 

Boerseun said it best when he said above that expansion of nothing is very different than expansion of something. Nothing in any *local* reference frame is going to move away from other objects except as predicted by Newton/Einstein.

 

Its not the *distance* thats the problem, its the *apparent speed*.

 

Its full of stars, :hihi:

Buffy

[infamous]

 

Boerseun said it best when he said above that expansion of nothing is very different than expansion of something. Nothing in any *local* reference frame is going to move away from other objects except as predicted by Newton/Einstein.

 

Its not the *distance* thats the problem, its the *apparent speed*.

 

Its full of stars, :hihi:

Buffy

I see..............It's the apparent misunderstanding about expansion that's causing all the frustration. After reading your link to Wiki, 'The Cosmological Principle' it's also becoming a little clearer to me that the issue of time is clouding our perception also. Looking out into our galactic neighborhood, things appear rather static, very little if any expansion is observed. However, looking back in time which is what we do when we gather information from vast distances, we see things expanding at hudge velocities.

If an alien on one of these distant quasars were to look back at us, they would see us moving away at incredible speed also. Funny thing about time, it will never be the same for all observers................Thanks for the link Buffy

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