The Science of God

No, what I said is a little different.


Quarks and leptons didn't turn into protons and neutrons, but protons and neutrons evolved from these fundamental particles.


Baryonic matter is made up of quarks and leptons. My apologies for any confusion that may have been caused by my phraseology.

*

Actually from Type 1a supernovas. Edwin Hubble used Cepheid variables to establish the expansion in the first place.


No, but given the reason you're asking, this is a really excellent question; I'm not a physicist to be able to answer it authoritatively, and sadly the only ATS member who really is a physicist (as far as I know; doubtless there are others) appears to have been banned a few days ago.

What I can tell you is that the amount of mass-energy in the universe is certainly not increasing. What is happening is that one form of energy is being transformed into another. It looks at first glance like dark energy -> kinetic energy, but I doubt it's as simple as that because, as far as we know, dark energy doesn't interact directly with matter - it acts on space itself.

Don't forget that the expansion of space is nonrelativistic - that's how points in space can end up moving apart from each other at superluminal velocities. I doubt that the applied mathematics of relativity apply to it any more than Newtonian mechanics does.

Any real physicists out there who can answer this?

(Braces himself against the avalanche of pseudoscientific nonsense that is sure to result from the above inquiry.)

[edit on 15/6/09 by Astyanax]

Oh ye of little faith,

haha. thanks for input astynax and sugarcube

Does it really moved at superluminal speeds? Or is the space bent/folded then its travels across the shorter distance?

I.e. imagine you palm flat, the distance from the bottom of your palm to the tip of your middle finger is going to be larger than a scenareio where you close your hand. If you get what I mean. It is theorectically possible to do this, since we see space time is bent by the mass of the Sun. Its just recreating artifical gravity or some sci-fi like that which is hard

Is there naything you have read, that you could link, that shows the expansion is no relatvistic (whatever the word is )

Thanks!

We're talking space itself. It's stretching. No multidimensional trickery need be involved. A supporter of string theories may tell you different - maybe he'll explain it by telling you that one of his famous curled-up dimensions is uncurling or something.

Tell you what, though: we've reached a point in this discussion so fundamental (in physical, not logical terms) that pretty much any weird idea you can come up with may be said to explain the situation, so long as:

1. your weird idea is mathematically consistent
   
   
2. no embarrassing phenomenon actually contradicts it

In other words, we've reached a point beyond which only real physicists, with postgraduate degrees and research grants, are qualified go. Many of my fellow-members will disagree, believing that even unqualified speculation has its uses even if its conclusions can never be supported or justified. I wish them happy imaginings, but this is where I bow out. I know all too well where my own competence ends.


Sure. Let's start with good old Wikipedia:



And then

Discussion of superluminal recession at Bad Astronomy Forums

Superluminal Recession Velocities by Davis & Lineweaver (excellent paper, linked to in the above discussion)

Rather deep discussion at Physics Forums Library - is superluminal recession real or an observational artifact?

Slightly less deep discussion.

Hope that helps. There's one particular paper that makes it all wonderfully clear, even the maths, but I keep looking for and not finding it. If I ever do, I'll post it here later.