Why space is expanding

I have to ask the question as to why space is expanding,

you can't just create more space
So inorder for objects to be moving apart and space between objects to be increasing,

The object must be getting smaller and taking up less space then they did previously.

Thus it would appear to an observer that objects outside a general vicinity look to be reseeding away from them and/or each other giving us a universe where space is expanding because matter is slowly shrinking away
That would make the matter or energy that composes the structure of all we see to be living and therefor dying before or eyes

That's when you look at the everything in the visible universe and try and grasp how it all functions off the principle of conservation of energy
only the gravitational force is a minimum constant in its effect on matter explaining galactic rotational problems on the otherside of its effect the force becomes greater then all the other forces creating a blackhole
across the universe it always is constantly forcing matter down into Itself

all other forces electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear are just the most effective way to conserve the energy present in the form of mass within all viable stuctures creating the diversity of partials atoms molecules elements planets stars galaxies and more for the longest possible amount of time that can be acheaved

It's like the universe has been in rewind since the the big bang

Originally posted by IblisLucifer
you can't just create more space

Can't you?

If only a way to understand these things was developed in the 1910s....

reply to post by IblisLucifer


Dear IblisLucifer,

I doesn't quite work that way. We can tell if stars are moving towards us or away from us based on a series of things. The universe is indeed expanding. The two competing theories are over whether they will eventually stop expanding or be ever expanding. As the universe expands, we do not see new matter being formed as far as I know.

reply to post by IblisLucifer

I have to ask the question as to why space is expanding,

you can't just create more space
So inorder for objects to be moving apart and space between objects to be increasing...

Its not that space itself is expanding, its the distance between objects is increasing. So they say that the universe is expanding. Thats what "they" say.

But then U gotta ask, if everything is rushing away from everything else and the Universe is infinitely old, then how come we aren't the only thing in the universe along time ago? Things should have been infinitely far apart by now, no? And if there was a "beginning" to the Universe, then what is outside the expanding universe now? Nothing? Forever? Thats impossible. So is the idea that the universe has some size to it. It has to go on forever.

I always find it absolutely hilarious that otherwise intelligent people attempt to do two things:

A) Establish with any confidence the nature of events transpiring across scales we have only been aware of for ten generations.

B) Resort to describing the mechanics of such events with self-ignorant explanations.

The problem with using relativity to describe volumetric expansion of space is that relativity consists of derived mathematical relationships as opposed to observed physical mechanics.

It's no more useful than saying: "my device that allows me to walk through walls works by making myself and the wall temporarily able to exist in the same time and place." Good job, you did it. Go make a walk-through-wall device and claim your Nobel Prize.

Oh, that's right - we don't actually know how to make walls and people exist in the same place at the same time... if it's even possible... so even using that explanation for a device that allows people to walk through walls is suspect.

The same problem is run into when explaining the volumetric expansion of space (which, in itself, is only observed in red shift - a very narrow range of observation for the suspect phenomena). Even taken for granted that space expands - how does it physically do so?

The answer in physics is a resounding: "We have no #ing clue." - "We just say it does because it sounds cool and most people aren't smart enough to see the issue... and any that do usually agree that space is expanding and see the generalized explanation as merely incomplete."

What is needed to adequately explain volumetric expansion of space is an experimentally supported model of vacuum space. Then we could go about explaining how space could potentially expand in a magical manner.

Until then - it's assumptions piled on top of antiquated equations that, while accurate for their purpose - are horribly insufficient for such a task as modeling physical space as we currently understand it to exist.

Or, in much more direct terms - we already know Relativity to be horribly incomplete due to the observations of subatomic particles giving rise to quantum mechanics. We know current understandings of quantum mechanics to be incomplete due to their failure, currently, to account for macroscopic phenomena (to include relativity). Using either to support a theoretical model of spatial expansion is, to the knowledgeable, a feint attempt.

It's as flawed as using classical Black Body Radiation calculations to support your model of an over-unity device.

But everyone wants an answer they can hang their hat on, and for whatever reason, the human psyche doesn't like hanging their hat on "We really don't know." Hence the haphazard development and campaigning of theories within the scientific community.

I agree with Aim, the standard model seems to be built on the very basis of there having been an occurrence called the "Big Bang", But for some reason many people also believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.


A more recent theory i read about is that our local solar system could be surrounded by a light refracting bubble and that alone could throw off many calculations that have already been made, maybe there are lots of such sources that can refract light that we have not detected properly, and then what? Could the visible section of the universe we have recorded be far smaller than what is known?

There are many questions that i think about during such talk of the universe, theories and what model is suitable for use, there are many flaws in the standard model and i'm not sure what the stance for electric universe theory around here is still, but could the EU theories be used for SOME of what it out there? maybe not everything but leave the possibility open that such possibilities are available.

Originally posted by Aim64C
The same problem is run into when explaining the volumetric expansion of space (which, in itself, is only observed in red shift - a very narrow range of observation for the suspect phenomena). Even taken for granted that space expands - how does it physically do so?

Its not just red shift. It is also the particle horizon of the observable universe that gives us a very big clue. There is a distance beyond which we are no longer receiving any light. This can mean two things. 1) that the stuff emitting light over there (or us) is moving faster than the speed of light (which is of course in direct contradiction with out current understanding of physics) or 2) that the actual space is increasing in volume. In fact, both us and those distance objects could not be moving at all, relatively to each other. It could just be the space expanding that gives us that illusion.

This is the reason why two objects of which the distance between them increases more than 299 792 458 m/s do not break our current laws of physics. This would also be a bit hard to swallow as we can actually observe this happening. (or rather, we lack observation of light that we would expect to reach us).

As for the rest of your post, I think you are being overly pessimistic about are current state of understanding. Sure we don't understand a lot, but we sure are on a right trail the past 200 years or so.

Originally posted by IblisLucifer
I have to ask the question as to why space is expanding,

you can't just create more space
So inorder for objects to be moving apart and space between objects to be increasing,

The object must be getting smaller and taking up less space then they did previously.

I think the problem with this idea is that the distance of objects in orbits would also increase. That would mean that stable orbits are not possible and every single collection of matter would fly apart. Solar system or galaxies could never form.

So this can not be a local event (in this case meaning it is just something happening to matter, which only occupy a very small portion of the universe), it must be something that happens everywhere (space happens to be everywhere).

reply to post by -PLB-


"There is a distance beyond which we are no longer receiving any light. This can mean two things."

It couldnt be that our instruments cannot detect light that far away?

reply to post by ImaFungi


No not really. As wikipedia states:

The word observable used in this sense does not depend on whether modern technology actually permits detection of radiation from an object in this region (or indeed on whether there is any radiation to detect). It simply indicates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth.

from this article: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by IblisLucifer
you can't just create more space

Can't you?

When you cook a loaf of raisin bread, the raisins all separate from each other as the bread expands. This is the analogy that cosmologists like to use where the raisins represent galaxies. So you've created more space between the raisins.

The conceptual difficulty is, what happens at the outer edge of the loaf of bread (or the expanding universe). In the case of the loaf of bread, the expanding bread replaces the air so there was air occupying that space before. In the case of the universe, the idea is that maybe nothing was there before the expansion, not even space. So yes that's the mainstream standard model idea in a nutshell, that more space is being created.

I grasp the concept and have examined the evidence to support the idea. But it is kind of a foreign concept to the human way of thinking, so it is hard to grasp. Is it proven true? I would say it's our best guess until somebody comes up with a better idea, with better evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

No not really. As wikipedia states:

The word observable used in this sense does not depend on whether modern technology actually permits detection of radiation from an object in this region (or indeed on whether there is any radiation to detect). It simply indicates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth.

from this article: en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 11-8-2012 by -PLB- because: tags

ok so it is then thought/assumed that this region is the bound or edge of the universe? nothing exists beyond the point at which we can see no further?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by -PLB-
from this article: en.wikipedia.org...

ok so it is then thought/assumed that this region is the bound or edge of the universe? nothing exists beyond the point at which we can see no further?

You obviously didn't read the link. Give it a try.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by IblisLucifer
you can't just create more space

Can't you?

When you cook a loaf of raisin bread, the raisins all separate from each other as the bread expands. This is the analogy that cosmologists like to use where the raisins represent galaxies. So you've created more space between the raisins.

The conceptual difficulty is, what happens at the outer edge of the loaf of bread (or the expanding universe). In the case of the loaf of bread, the expanding bread replaces the air so there was air occupying that space before. In the case of the universe, the idea is that maybe nothing was there before the expansion, not even space. So yes that's the mainstream standard model idea in a nutshell, that more space is being created.

I grasp the concept and have examined the evidence to support the idea. But it is kind of a foreign concept to the human way of thinking, so it is hard to grasp. Is it proven true? I would say it's our best guess until somebody comes up with a better idea, with better evidence to back it up.

in the case of the raisin bread,,, with the bread representing space,,,,, the bread in between raisins expands,, because of physically, materially reactions of the bread,, Is space between galaxies material/ physically constructed of "something", like the bread?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by -PLB-
from this article: en.wikipedia.org...

ok so it is then thought/assumed that this region is the bound or edge of the universe? nothing exists beyond the point at which we can see no further?

You obviously didn't read the link. Give it a try.

ok read the first section of the link,,.,.,. If there was light beyond the final point we can detect light, in principle we would be able to detect it,, so we assume nothings there? is that the point?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
in the case of the raisin bread,,, with the bread representing space,,,,, the bread in between raisins expands,, because of physically, materially reactions of the bread,, Is space between galaxies material/ physically constructed of "something", like the bread?

That analogy is supposed to illustrate that you can be on any raisin and see all the other raisins moving away from you, which is sort of how the galaxies look to us with a few exceptions like andromeda.

But like any analogy it has limitations.

There is a big difference between what looks like "empty space" and "nothing". One of the surprising things in physics is that empty space is anything but empty. We have demonstrated that it contains "vacuum energy" among other things, and it may be that vacuum energy which is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, though we aren't sure about that yet, that's a popular idea though.

reply to post by ImaFungi


This is a very unintuitive thing, and not really easy to grasp. I won't claim I am grasping it fully. I think it requires a couple of reads in order to understand what is going on really.

It is not assumed that nothing is there ("there" being beyond the boundary of what we can see). We assume there are more galaxies there, its just that the light (radiation) they emit does not reach us yet, or will never reach us at all, no matter how long we wait.

One reason we assume this is because of the shape of the universe we can observe. It is a perfect sphere, and we happen to be at the exact center of it. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that this is the actual shape of our universe, it is much more reasonable to assume that its just what we can observe, and more exists beyond what we can observe.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by -PLB-
from this article: en.wikipedia.org...

ok so it is then thought/assumed that this region is the bound or edge of the universe? nothing exists beyond the point at which we can see no further?

You obviously didn't read the link. Give it a try.

ok read the first section of the link,,.,.,. If there was light beyond the final point we can detect light, in principle we would be able to detect it,, so we assume nothings there? is that the point?

No we don't assume nothing is there. It's part of our standard model that there was a dark period after the big bang where lots of stuff was there but it wasn't visible.

Look at the "Dark Age" in this illustration:


Lambda_cdm
We assume something was there but it wasn't giving off light yet, which is why it's called the dark age.

reply to post by -PLB-

Its not just red shift. It is also the particle horizon of the observable universe that gives us a very big clue. There is a distance beyond which we are no longer receiving any light. This can mean two things. 1) that the stuff emitting light over there (or us) is moving faster than the speed of light (which is of course in direct contradiction with out current understanding of physics) or 2) that the actual space is increasing in volume. In fact, both us and those distance objects could not be moving at all, relatively to each other. It could just be the space expanding that gives us that illusion.

It could also be a demon that is gobbling up all the light.

We form many, many assumptions about the distant universe that are questionable, at best. We presume physics to be largely the same. It does not have to be this way - what we perceive as similar to our own galaxy may be a completely different physical system operating on mechanics that contact our own on a tangent (the obvious one being the emission of light).

Now - it may be "unreasonable" to do so... but it's also somewhat suspect to believe the universe has a beginning, end, or defined state to begin with. Entire portions of our universe could theoretically be lying in quantum superpositions and their history will be filled in as they are observed (could be a potential explanation for all the magichanical forces out there).

Or - hell - there could be an entire class of physics that we could never begin to hypothesize about until operating across several lightyears or more (just as we wouldn't have really predicted quantum mechanics until we started dealing with electricity, steam, and other concepts that formed our understanding of particle physics... and even then - we didn't predict it so much as it bit us in the ass).

This is the reason why two objects of which the distance between them increases more than 299 792 458 m/s do not break our current laws of physics. This would also be a bit hard to swallow as we can actually observe this happening. (or rather, we lack observation of light that we would expect to reach us).

Not convinced.

It's not because I haven't heard or don't understand what you're saying. It's because I find it to be a horribly unsubstantiated conclusion given the evidence.

Why do we expect to see light out there?

What evidence is there that we should expect to find light where we aren't seeing it?

What other explanations are possible?

Why does one explanation without proper mechanical founding become favored over other explanations that make no additional assumptions yet also lack proper mechanical founding?

As for the rest of your post, I think you are being overly pessimistic about are current state of understanding. Sure we don't understand a lot, but we sure are on a right trail the past 200 years or so.

*shakes head*

You're deluded by earthly accomplishments. Most of our accomplishments - while allowing us to progress far beyond our imagination - are little more than creative manipulation of phenomena we largely stumbled across.

We didn't develop nuclear reactors. We simply learned to harness the natural process of spontaneous-cascading fission reactions that occur in nature.

About the only thing we can actually claim as our own development would be the PN junction. Almost everything else was a refining process of what we happened to trip over. Metallurgy, basic electronics, chemistry and biology - the list goes on.

Taking that into account, I believe my perspective on predictions regarding the function of the universe at large is quite pragmatic. For example - that atom was considered, for quite some time, to be a mathematical convenience by many in the scientific community. It worked well for calculating how steam under pressure would behave, but surely that was where the usefulness ended.

I simply think there are phenomena out there that we have no way of anticipating - and they will challenge many of our preconceptions about how the universe "out there" is supposed to work.

Our track record of manipulating things we've discovered is superb. Our track record of actually developing/predicting an understanding of processes from theory.... not so good.