Can Expansion Theory Really Explain Observed Universe?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


You were right up until the "mathematically infinite behavior." I'm not really sure what that means. But, regardless, you were right about the quantum particles...nothing in quantum mechanics physically exists. Wavefunctions aren't physical, and virtual photons (virtual wavefuncions) certainly aren't physical.

Fields are, at their most basic, an exchange of momentum. The word "field" doesn't really describe something that's actually there, it describes the magnitude of the change in momentum that one object produces in another object. When fields are mediated by specific particles, they're always bosons, which, again, are non-physical wavefunctions. None of this is affected by universal expansion.


ok so if i interpret this correctly,,.,. your saying the effects of quantum particles and their wave functions,, are like wind or gravity? a non visible result of energy interacting with energy in time and space?




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Yep, that would be a decent way of putting it.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Yep, that would be a decent way of putting it.


ok,, and is that why you believe space is some type of medium,, or physical in some way,., where as a energetic particle traveling through space,, can effect something it passes without physically coming in contact? there must be something about space which "waves" or "wakes", which is the "field"?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I have offered my own explanation of expanding space in the recent thread, Why Space is Expanding. I'll not repeat it here.

Fields, and tensors are mere mathematical representations of how particles behave differently depending on location. A description of an effect is not the cause of the effect.

The balloon analogy works better with ants crawling on the balloon's surface. If the ants are too far apart, they can't get closer together by walking toward one another.
edit on 2012/8/26 by Phractal Phil because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I have a question...

Does light encompass all things?

This truly matters, right?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
thanks for the reply,, and that does help,.,,.

But I still dont comprehend how photons can be physically non existent,,. I was under the impression that all phenomena are material/physical,.,..,.,

So to comprehend how massless, non physical quantom particles can construct a massive physical universe,,, one needs to assume things like the higgs field?
You're welcome.

Here's my suggestion. Find that raisin bread picture I posted. Click the link. Scroll to the bottom and click the "hyperphysics" link.

That's sort of a home page to many relevant topics, among them quantum physics, light (photons), and so on, written at a level which I think is supposed to be suitable for high school students though I think some of the material is a bit advanced for that audience.

To learn more about the Higgs boson you can type "Higgs" in the search box and you'll see a result that links back to that site in the fundamental forces section. Or you can search any of your other questions, and since you're delightfully curious, I'm sure you have many.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
I have a question...

Does light encompass all things?

This truly matters, right?
Unless you can explain how that's on topic, I'm not sure if it is.

To get an answer from a physicist, you would be asked to restate the question in a format which can be answered.

However I'll make a leap here and posit maybe your question is on topic for this thread and pose an answer relating to the fate of the universe as it continues to expand.

Future of an expanding universe


eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. And as existing stars ran out of fuel and ceased shining, the universe would slowly and inexorably grow darker, one star at a time.
When we look in the sky now it appears mostly black but that black is dotted with light from billions of stars. In the future there will be less stars and less light, until, eventually, there's nearly no light at all, if our current theories are correct.

A more practical answer might relate to the probe we sent to find water at the lunar pole. The reason we found water inside that crater is because almost no light gets to the inside of that crater. So I'd say for the most part, light didn't encompass the inside of that crater, so from a practical standpoint "Does light encompass all things? " would be mostly false in that case. You could get picky and say a few photons got inside, but it was still very dark to human powers of observation, dark enough so that the ice didn't evaporate or sublimate.

And if that's not dark enough, there are hollow lava tubes under the moon's surface which are places we might consider building a future moon base. We expect that no external light at all gets inside those.
edit on 26-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


" If our current theories are correct".

Which one? There are many theories about the Universe. Last week I watched a show with three theoretical physicists saying different things about Time and the Universe and even discussing the multi verse theory.

Can we observe the Universe expanding? Does it not have to do with light and from where we are observing?

Light is on topic in my opinion becuase it dictates what we see and observe with our eyes.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 

They sometimes call it a multiverse theory in error, but it's actually the multiverse hypothesis, meaning evidence is lacking.

In contrast, evidence of redshift observations indicating the universe is expanding is abundant. People have tried to explain these redshifts other ways, such as with "tired light", but the other explanations have all failed to be consistent with observations.

Scientists do throw a lot of ideas out on the table, especially on shows like "through the wormhole", but it is prudent to see how much evidence backs up various ideas before we accept them as scientifically held views.

So when I say "according to current theories" I'm referring to those backed up by evidence, and not hypotheses like multiverse which are not supported by evidence.

So if you hear someone refer to a "multiverse theory", take comfort in the fact you are smarter than they are, and you know it's actually a "multiverse hypothesis", meaning there's no evidence. You can even correct them if you like.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


The amount of gravitational force in a galaxy is actually enough to compensate the space stretch?! I am truly surprised. After all, expansion is a pretty strong force. I would have tough that it would surpass by far the amount of gravity in even the smallest of galaxies. Your statement implies that even the smallest of galaxies, say the Small Magellanic Cloud, have a sufficient mass to compensate expansion... I know gravity is locally strong, but that strong?

I understand what you say about wavelength, but when I say space, I really mean the amount of distance, not physical space. If "space (the amounts of distances)" is stretched, it means that if you would put a ruler in this expanding field, it would follow the expansion. Thus you would see that the lines on the ruler would follow the stretch too, right? So one milimeter would be stretched to (if you are an outside observer) say 5 milimeters, but if you are part of the field you would still see the stretched 1 milimeter line as it looked before expansion stretched it. Didn't Einstein once said if you fall in a black hole, to you your clock will seem to work OK but to an outside observer your clock will seem to slow down and even stop? My statement that space expansion (not talking here about gravitational redshift, to which I actually agree) can't affect light's wavelength directly follow from these two phenomenons: the ruler which follows space expansion and the clocks. Was I misinformed about the clocks?
edit on 27-8-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Here is a good read for anyone interested. skyserver.sdss.org...


But measuring the evolution of the density variations in the universe still does not answer the most important question: why does the universe contain these differences in density in the first place? To answer this question, astronomers and astrophysicists must understand the nature of the density variations and construct theories of the origin of the universe that predict how these variations should occur.


Who knows whats going on out there.... We sure dont, not yet.

I see a Universe and possibly tons of multi verses as just moving and changing, not really expanding as such.

Photons and energy of all kinds interacting and life bouncing around here and there..... It's absolutely brilliant in so many ways!



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Density variations refers to matter, which is not exactly the topic of this thread. But I will explain the density variation to you:
You see, we still try to figure out why galaxies even exist. It is believed that when Big Bang occured, there was some variations in the density of matter in the early universe, which, in laymen's words, means there were lumps of matter. We think those lumps became the galaxies, but we still try to see how these lumps got formed in the first place. It meant the Universe wasn't perfectly smooth...
edit on 27-8-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ha! Naw.... I don't want to correct something for which I still do not understand.

There is a lot we are still trying to improve on so for me to sit back with authority like I know any more would be totally arrogant and egotistic on my part.

Theories are not something I consider fact. Its a theory until someone comes along and either rips it up or tweaks it to better suit what we think we know.

At present we have these older than dirt theories that need some tweaking so we can understand our surroundings better.

There are many observers looking and studying our Universe. These observers have different eyes with different ideas. The theories conflict and there is the dogma that comes with anything like this..... Politics.

I sometimes wonder without the light in the Universe what would the matter look like? Even though the dark matter is prevalent, we still know its there. We know matter exists that we cannot see. What about photons? How are they effecting the over all picture?

For example, we need to begin with the big bang. Lol



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Density variations refers to matter, which is not exactly the topic of this thread. But I will explain the density variation to you:
You see, we still try to figure out why galaxies even exist. It is believed that when Big Bang occured, there was some variations in the density of matter in the early universe, which, in laymen's words, means there were lumps of matter. We think those lumps became the galaxies, but we still try to see how these lumps got formed in the first place. It meant the Universe wasn't perfectly smooth...
edit on 27-8-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


How does matter not come into play with the expansion theory topic here?

When and how Matter came on the scene and how they got lumped together is ok for this thread? ok.

Confused! Lol I get the feeling this is a club and y'all don't want me here. On topic is where I have been and where I will stay, it's funny I keep getting told I'm not on topic when in fact I am on topic. A different pov maybe but still on topic.

Matter in my opinion is nothing but a projection of light manifested in the material world. This is where I begin to see the Universe expansion in a different " Light" I guess.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
Here is a good read for anyone interested. skyserver.sdss.org...


To answer this question, astronomers and astrophysicists must understand the nature of the density variations and construct theories of the origin of the universe that predict how these variations should occur.


Who knows whats going on out there.... We sure dont, not yet.
I don't see any date on that, but what they suggest needs to be done has been done to some extent by George Smoot using tons of supercomputer power so I think that's slightly dated. He won a Nobel prize for related work. You can see his excellent TED presentation on Youtube but it's better to download it from the TED site where you can see it in higher resolution.

Here's the lower resolution youtube version:

George Smoot: The design of the universe


Here's the TED link where you can find download links to better quality versions (it's got a lot of cool graphics so it's worth the download):
www.ted.com...

The science here has a more solid foundation than unproven hypotheses like multiverse. The slide at 6:30 shows big bang expansion at the bottom so it's kind of on-topic.
edit on 27-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ


How does matter not come into play with the expansion theory topic here?


You got a point there. Matter has gravity, and gravity is more than important.


Confused! Lol I get the feeling this is a club and y'all don't want me here.


No! That's not true. Please feel free to express your opinion, I just wanted to make sure we all stay on topic.


Matter in my opinion is nothing but a projection of light manifested in the material world. This is where I begin to see the Universe expansion in a different " Light" I guess.


Believe it or not, and don't tell CLPrime, but I though about that possibility myself, I even devised a small equation for it...
edit on 27-8-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
Ha! Naw.... I don't want to correct something for which I still do not understand.
There's a difference between understanding the definitions of words, and understanding complex ideas like scientific theories. We should all be able to do the former while even the brightest minds struggle with the latter.

So you should be able to grasp these definitions, without the need to understand any complex ideas:

What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?


In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. For instance, suppose you see the Sun rise. This is an existing observation which is explained by the theory of gravity proposed by Newton. This theory, in addition to explaining why we see the Sun move across the sky, also explains many other phenomena such as the path followed by the Sun as it moves (as seen from Earth) across the sky, the phases of the Moon, the phases of Venus, the tides, just to mention a few. You can today make a calculation and predict the position of the Sun, the phases of the Moon and Venus, the hour of maximal tide, all 200 years from now. The same theory is used to guide spacecraft all over the Solar System.

A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.
Some critics claim the multiverse idea is not even a scientific hypothesis because it can't be tested. So it's pretty low on the scale of scientific ideas since not only has it not been tested, it may not even be testable.

A theory is much more reliable because not only is it testable, but it's been tested.


Theories are not something I consider fact.
Nobody said theories are facts. Using the example above, theory says the sun will rise tomorrow. It's not a fact that will happen. But it does seem pretty likely, wouldn't you agree? Predictions of solar and lunar eclipses are also very accurate. They all seem to happen precisely as predicted, so with this theory, it seems pretty darn accurate as a predictor. But that doesn't mean someone won't come up with a better theory, so that's one reason it's not called fact. Newton's theory made great predictions for centuries until Einstein's theory came along and made slightly better ones, regarding the precession of Mercury. Even though Newton's theory was ever so slightly wrong, it was still very much right because it was supported with lots of evidence.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What are you two arguing about? Theories are not fact, they are theories. Stephen Hawkins said, "A good theory is a theory one can't disprove. If you can disprove a theory, than the theory fails. But if you can't disprove the theory, then, (however silly the theory may seem), the theory can't be rejected and hangs around." Why do you think there is so much new agers out there? Their theory are completely ridiculous, yet we still can't prove them absolutely wrong.
edit on 27-8-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 



Originally posted by swan001
What are you two arguing about? Theories are not fact, they are theories. Stephen Hawkins said, "A good theory is a theory one can't disprove. If you can disprove a theory, than the theory fails. But if you can't disprove the theory, then, (however silly the theory may seem), the theory can't be rejected and hangs around." Why do you think there is so much new agers out there? Their theory are completely ridiculous, yet we still can't prove them absolutely wrong.

What is the source for that quote and who is Stephen Hawkins? If you take that quote to encompass the totality of what constitutes a scientific theory, you've got a great misunderstanding of the concept. In addition to not being falsified, a scientific theory must have significant evidence to support it. If it doesn't, it's just a hypothesis.

New age ideas without evidence to support them are not considered scientific theories.

www.notjustatheory.com...

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
New age ideas have not been repeatedly tested and therefore aren't theories from a scientific perspective, so I have no idea where you got that misconception from.



edit on 27-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by MamaJ
 

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What are you two arguing about? Theories are not fact, they are theories. Stephen Hawkins said, "A good theory is a theory one can't disprove. If you can disprove a theory, than the theory fails. But if you can't disprove the theory, then, (however silly the theory may seem), the theory can't be rejected and hangs around." Why do you think there is so much new agers out there? Their theory are completely ridiculous, yet we still can't prove them absolutely wrong.
edit on 27-8-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


I'm not a one to argue.... :-) not going to either. For each person there is a personal perception so with that said, I'm thinking out loud what's on my mind, doesn't make it fact. It's just another opinion.

I like to think outside the box, and sometimes it appears as I'm wanting to set a stage for an argument but the case of the matter is I'm just trying to understand others mind sets at the same time.

A fact is based on another known fact but reality is so complex that facts are always in need of reworking, or so it seems to me.

Matter and light matters a great deal to me when I'm observing anything, much less the Universe as a whole. How it reacts and moves depends on the light in my opinion becuase from the light is what we use to see and or observe it (matter). The basics of such with matter, light and energy in my opinion are the basics are we are still learning a great deal but are not completely there, if that makes any sense.



  exclusive video


new topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join