Why space is expanding

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

In fact, space is very real and can be measured precisely. I am not sure where you got the idea that it is just a conceptual idea, in physics is certainly is not.

Are you sure you are not conflating (thereby confusing) the idea of 'space' with things that 'occupy' space? Hence falling into the error of treating 'space' as being something tangibly 'real,' which it is not - rather than the 'things' that are in space, which are indeed tangible - therefore 'real.'

reply to post by -PLB-



"I don't think so. From what I understand the rotation of the universe (if there is any) has little effect on anything".


hm yea,,,,, I had more in mind that the matter of the universe was rotating,,, not all the universe as a static whole piece rotating like a carousel,,,, but each individual galaxy like grains of sand spun in a 2 litere bottle of water,, the matter of the universe rotating, and this action giving phantom physical laws to the absence of matter ( space) between matter...
the eye of this hurricane would be a large universal black hole where the matter of the universe began,,,
if a desert was infinite time and space,, a tornado would be the universe,.., stirred up by infinite preceding potential,, and perhaps it will eventually dwindle giving back all of its kinetic energy into infinite potential once again....

do you think the energy content of the physical universe is an infinitely large amount? do you think there is anything beyond this universe? Why and how is the energy content of the physical universe exactly what it is? why not a billion quadrillion magnitudes more or less?

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

In fact, space is very real and can be measured precisely. I am not sure where you got the idea that it is just a conceptual idea, in physics is certainly is not.

Are you sure you are not conflating (thereby confusing) the idea of 'space' with things that 'occupy' space? Hence falling into the error of treating 'space' as being something 'real,' which it is not - rather than the 'things' that are in space, which are indeed 'real.'

edit on 11-8-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing/spell

and this is the crux of the problem,.,.. Is space constructed of physicality? is space material,,, if it is or if it is not ,.,.,.,. the seemingly empty distance between to cosmic objects is real,, in the same way the distance ( space) between you and I is real and measurable by an ordered and consistent system of measurement,

reply to post by Vitruvian


According to your line of reasoning an empty cup it not real. It only becomes real when you fill it with something. It is true that in order to measure space, we have to interact with it somehow, an thus "putting something in it". I don't see how it makes space any less real.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

According to your line of reasoning an empty cup it not real. It only becomes real when you fill it with something. It is true that in order to measure space, we have to interact with it somehow, an thus "putting something in it". I don't see how it makes space any less real.

Not really - the cup is surely real, whether it be empty of full, but the empty space that the 'limiting' cup surrounds is surely different than the empty cup itself. It is the 'emptiness' of the cup that is not 'real, ' and it would be an absurdity to say that the empty cup isn't real (whether full or empty) when in fact that it is the only thing that is real within the context of this present discussion.

ALSO - Some here might be considering the cosmos in the same way that we consider an ocean (as do some scientists) - but they are not to be compared when it comes to this notion of space. The ocean - by definition - is full - therefore there's no emptiness in it. There's no room for it whereas the cosmos, on the other hand, is full of emptiness and is only populated by certain celestial bodies floating within it.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

In fact, space is very real and can be measured precisely. I am not sure where you got the idea that it is just a conceptual idea, in physics is certainly is not.

Are you sure you are not conflating (thereby confusing) the idea of 'space' with things that 'occupy' space? Hence falling into the error of treating 'space' as being something 'real,' which it is not - rather than the 'things' that are in space, which are indeed 'real.'

edit on 11-8-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing/spell

and this is the crux of the problem,.,.. Is space constructed of physicality? is space material,,, if it is or if it is not ,.,.,.,. the seemingly empty distance between to cosmic objects is real,, in the same way the distance ( space) between you and I is real and measurable by an ordered and consistent system of measurement,

But measurements aren't 'real' either in the sense that we are talking about here. Neither is 'distance' - they are conceptual methods applied to our understanding of the relationships between things - as in mathematical. Symbolic things aren't real - they merely refer us to other things that are.

The concept of space and time also fall into the same category of conceptual methodology - as in mathematics and language they are merely symbolic constructs that assist us in comprehending the universe around us. .

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

In fact, space is very real and can be measured precisely. I am not sure where you got the idea that it is just a conceptual idea, in physics is certainly is not.

Are you sure you are not conflating (thereby confusing) the idea of 'space' with things that 'occupy' space? Hence falling into the error of treating 'space' as being something 'real,' which it is not - rather than the 'things' that are in space, which are indeed 'real.'

edit on 11-8-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing/spell

and this is the crux of the problem,.,.. Is space constructed of physicality? is space material,,, if it is or if it is not ,.,.,.,. the seemingly empty distance between to cosmic objects is real,, in the same way the distance ( space) between you and I is real and measurable by an ordered and consistent system of measurement,

But measurements aren't 'real' either in the sense that we are talking about here. Neither is 'distance' - they are conceptual methods applied to our understanding of the relationships between things - as in mathematical. Symbolic things aren't real - they merely refer us to other things that are.

The concept of space and time also fall into the same category of conceptual methodology - as in mathematics and language they are merely symbolic constructs that assist us in comprehending the universe around us. .

edit on 11-8-2012 by Vitruvian because: editing/spell

but whether we measure the distance between two galaxies with light years,, inches, or peanuts,,,, there is an exact object able real distance between the two galaxies,, whether we know and understand the mathematical reactions of the laws of physics,, matter reacts with itself mathematically via the laws of physics,, our measurements are man made and arbitrary,, but what we are measuring is real,,, even if its the lack of stuff we consider real,,, if we are measuring a spatial distance,, that distance of space exists.


if you really believe what your saying,,, then you must believe the entire universe right now exists in a dimensionless point,,, and nothing about this has or can ever change ( space = the distance and dimension between the stuff in the universe,,, time = the motion,movement, and way this stuff relatively changes, and how its changed collectively since the beginning of time) I think at least.

reply to post by Aim64C
I do not pretend to be able to wrap my mind around this subject any more than most folks , although I think that you may find this link gives some food for thought.
en.wikipedia.org...

I once heard scientists say that the universe is very much like a brain and expanding like a thought. It kinda makes you wonder who's thought is it.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
this pictorial analogy is not completely accurate to reality either,, in the way that ( unless im wrong) I dont believe it is presumed the big bang expelled/expanded its contents like an upward shooting geyser,, did it? if it did not,,, would that image be more appropriate if the expansion was shown completely surrounding the begging of time starting point?

I understand it is attempting at showing the upward ( forward) travel through time,,

You show that you understand it's a time based representation which is good because it's true. Then you puzzlingly say it's not completely accurate to reality which seems to show you don't understand it. You were right about the time representation and that is accurate. And of course a telescope is a time machine of sorts, because the further out we look the further back in time we see.

Now to translate that time into what is observed, you could use a different diagram but this format is not as famous or as popular with cosmologists since they already know this; however I think this should answer your question:

The Hubble Time Machine


This is basically the same information, presented in a different format, where time is now on the horizontal axis (in a logarithmic scale. In the previous diagram, time was on the vertical axis, and the horizontal axis showed the size of the expanding universe. The vertical axis here shows nothing so the other diagram had more information). Both are accurate representations of our standard model theory. Obviously it shows that after the furthest light we can see is the dark age, where something is there but it's not visible.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


This is one of the things i think of, in that picture it is showing that from our perspective we are looking from an inner portion of a bubble to the outer edge, isn't that a bit backwards? I would think it should be the other way around, the older galaxies and stars are more developed the farther out to the supposed "edge" we look, unless we are actually looking from the outer edge to the center.


It would make far more sense to me if that were the case, as any light from what is actually closer to the center of this "big bang" would be heading outwards towards us, thereby allowing us to see it as it passes.

Space is infinite,
it is essentially unchanging whether seemingly empty or full of energy composed of the basic quantum particals defining the structures of matter being what stars planets and all living things biological or not are built of, with each changing form throughout its various stages of existence

Since space cannot change its form meaning it nether bends or warps, but merely stores the information put into it
It can be stated that only that which occupies space can defines it and change within it.

It is stages of existence that energy takes from the present universes beginning until the current universes eventual end after its slowly drained of all energy from it by the constant inward evaporation of energy by gravity which will end it bringing on a new universe much the same as the last but with a whole new chance for the effects of variable change to allow for anything possible to happen within it

reply to post by IblisLucifer




a lot of what you said is nice!!

"Since space cannot change its form meaning it nether bends or warps"

i personally cant say i know,, but i wish you good luck in your attempt to argue with einstein on that ( if not him,, his successors)

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
this pictorial analogy is not completely accurate to reality either,, in the way that ( unless im wrong) I dont believe it is presumed the big bang expelled/expanded its contents like an upward shooting geyser,, did it? if it did not,,, would that image be more appropriate if the expansion was shown completely surrounding the begging of time starting point?

I understand it is attempting at showing the upward ( forward) travel through time,,

You show that you understand it's a time based representation which is good because it's true. Then you puzzlingly say it's not completely accurate to reality which seems to show you don't understand it. You were right about the time representation and that is accurate. And of course a telescope is a time machine of sorts, because the further out we look the further back in time we see.

Now to translate that time into what is observed, you could use a different diagram but this format is not as famous or as popular with cosmologists since they already know this; however I think this should answer your question:

The Hubble Time Machine


This is basically the same information, presented in a different format, where time is now on the horizontal axis (in a logarithmic scale. In the previous diagram, time was on the vertical axis, and the horizontal axis showed the size of the expanding universe. The vertical axis here shows nothing so the other diagram had more information). Both are accurate representations of our standard model theory. Obviously it shows that after the furthest light we can see is the dark age, where something is there but it's not visible.

edit on 11-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

what i was getting at,, like the poster below you mentioned,.,.,. is when the big bang banged,,, wasnt energy dispersed in all directions from a central point? i know for intensive purposes the graph is shown how it is,, but to acurately depict reality,, wouldnt the radiation stage all the way to the right,, be curved the other way into a circle,, and the evolution of energy of the universe dispersing from a circle in infinite directions outward?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
when the big bang banged,,, wasnt energy dispersed in all directions from a central point?

Originally posted by cruddas
unless we are actually looking from the outer edge to the center.

It's slightly mind boggling, but there is no center, at least according to the standard model. I can sympathize with having some difficulty in comprehending it because it's a difficult concept for me too, at least the lack of any center is a little difficult.

But the concept of looking back in time isn't so difficult. Light takes time to get here so the further away we look the further back in time we see, that's the easy part for me.

If you want to bend your mind even further, look at the three possible shapes of the universe:

en.wikipedia.org...

The local geometry of the universe is determined by whether Omega is less than, equal to or greater than 1.
From top to bottom:
a spherical universe Ω > 1,
a hyperbolic universe Ω < 1, and
a flat universe Ω = 1.

If the universe is spherical, and if you could travel fast enough, you could keep traveling in one direction and end up back where you started. How's that for a mind bender?

Michio Kaku thinks it's spherical, though such a large sphere it looks pretty flat.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"It's slightly mind boggling, but there is no center, at least according to the standard model. I can sympathize with having some difficulty in comprehending it because it's a difficult concept for me too, at least the lack of any center is a little difficult. "

Is there any essays of legitimate physicist even posing themselves the question?... because if its all off of speculation + observation ,,, ill remain skeptical of the belief they claim is truth,.,.

and holding that opinion they do causes them to assume other things like they really are seeing all the way in the past and not just the furthest they can measure and so there is a grouping of light gathered from infinite sources billions of light years beyond the farthest distance we can measure,,

reply to post by IblisLucifer

Actually...from the data we have...and the Universe is in a state of EXPANSION...and whether that is due to DARK ENERGY or some other reason....our Universe is FINITE and so are the Number of Galaxies in it. Space/Time Geometry dictates that the Size of our Universe is getting Larger.

It is the Multiverse that is INFINITE but not our Universe and everything in it.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Is there any essays of legitimate physicist even posing themselves the question?... because if its all off of speculation + observation ,,, ill remain skeptical of the belief they claim is truth,.,.

Actually they know what they know and don't know what they don't know. They are candid about admitting what parts of the theory are more speculative.

Here's a source you can read that's on the topic of this thread, which discusses several possibilities and it should be clear the astronomer who wrote it doesn't think he has all the answers, though he has some:

What is the universe expanding into?

I am very confused about things my science book says about the expanding universe. Every book I have seen has defined the universe as "everything". If the universe is expanding what is it expanding into? It would have to expand into even more universe. I understand that the red spectra indicates that things are moving away from us but that is drifting not expanding, right? If you could help me to understand this, it would be appreciated. Thank you for your time.

That's very similar to the topic of this thread, so he discusses that at length, and also the related question about whether or not the universe has a center. It's written for laypeople to read so it's not overly technical. Here is a sample:

Where is the center of the universe? In the old picture, it is easy to say where the center of the universe is - it's the point in space that all the galaxies are moving away from. In the new picture, though, this isn't so clear. Remember, the galaxies aren't actually moving away from each other - they're sitting still! Let's go back to the dough analogy...

The dough analogy is the one I mentioned earlier in the thread.

It's a long read, but it's an involved topic so that's probably appropriate if you want anything more than an oversimplified explanation.

reply to post by ImaFungi

If their truly is a center point from which emanates all energy from the big bang came from it must exist at the heart of every piece of matter in the cosmos
make matter the center with objects seperated only by space in are limited perspective this allows for a more free flowing universe with high mass and gravitional states like neutron star and blackholes are closer to the shared mutual center

while objects with smaller masses and lower states of gravity like planets as well as everything on and in them or asteroids down to clouds of dust and gas

With every individual atom existing throughout each galaxy being a part of the center that at the beginning of this universe where like a sea that slowly began to cool condense and dissipate into itself forming what will become the next universe

As was said earlier about the raisin bread is true in the sense that while baking in the oven the things move about changing as it develops, but after you remove the bread from the oven it begins to cool and settle leave it out and it will slowly decompose.

This takes a long time to happen whether it raisin bread or the universe but from both of the decayed compost originates new life and eventually new raisin bread or universes.

Not sure if this has been said, but my theory is that space is already infinite. Stuff is just moving to it or being created in it. The universe is expanding, but space is limitless.