Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Can Expansion Theory Really Explain Observed Universe?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
When you say this below, I'm not in agreement or disagreement, just wondering what makes you think this is true. Which concepts do you have in mind? There are many.



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.
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I've read many books from physicists who look at the observed Universe In a more spiritual manner than his colleagues. Does this mean his concept or idea is New Age?

Is Susan Rennisons theories and ideas New Age?

Just trying to understand your mind set in regards to the quote above.




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Is the original energy of energy all from the quantum level? meaning very tiny masses,,, and the reason there are macro material structures,, is because the quantum quanta squished together and created more macro things like atoms... or quantum quanta like you said doesnt even physically exist?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"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?" - me

could this be the same idea on what dark matter is?

is space time different then dark matter and dark energy,,, or is dark matter and dark energy attempts at describing the physicality of space-time?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
Just trying to understand your mind set in regards to the quote above.
The key is understanding the meaning of the word "metaphysical traditions" in the following explanation of New Age in Wiki:


The New Age movement is a Western spiritual movement that developed in the second half of the 20th century. Its central precepts have been described as "drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics"
By the way what new-agers portray as "quantum physics" support for what they say is usually very inconsistent with real quantum physics as most don't even understand quantum physics.

The wiki on metaphysics explains how the part of philosophy based on empirical activity branched off to become science, while metaphysics remained an area of philosophy lacking in empirical activity:

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The term science itself meant "knowledge" of, originating from epistemology. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.
The issue with non-empirical activity of course is that 100 people can tell you 100 different things some of which contradict each other, so how do you know who among the 100, if any, is right? This was the situation for all philosophy at one time before science branched off and allowed empirical activity to determine which of the 100 versions was correct.

Metaphysics was not included in this so we still can't decide which of the 100 metaphysical claims is correct based on empirical activity. All we can say for sure is that if they are mutually exclusive claims, 1 might be right and at least 99 might be wrong. Alternatively all 100 may be wrong. These aren't very good odds, so that's why my view is somewhat skeptical regarding metaphysical claims.

Regarding any specific new age philosopher or claim, most of them would say the sky is blue and this is supported by empirical activity, so you really have to evaluate each claim on its own merits to determine the nature and extent of the empirical activity which supports it.

If a new-ager tells us the universe is not expanding, more than likely they don't have any empirical evidence to support this claim, or the evidence is flawed or contradicted by observation.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I know the meanings you can obtain from the Internet, I was more interested in your thought process regarding the " new age" movement that is not new at all!

In my opinion what we are seeing with the movement coined new age is as old as dirt! Lol

I can show you how the spiritual is inevitably going to mix in with all sorts of ideas, concepts, and theories from the beginning of time.

It is said in many creation stories the light was divided from the dark.. This shows me math is as old as dirt too.

Seriously, I'm going to link this again and I hope you will read it and get an idea of what it was like way back when. Philosophy has been a derivitave of many things...

Have you ever heard of Anaxagoras?? If not... Read the entire link... It's interesting! Plato has always been one of my favorite thinkers. This link is " Nous" .. en.wikipedia.org...


According to Anaxagoras the cosmos is made of infinitely divisible matter, every bit of which can inherently become anything, except Mind (nous), which is also matter, but which can only be found separated from this general mixture, or else mixed in to living things, or in other words in the Greek terminology of the time, things with a soul (psuchē).[10] Anaxagoras wrote:



All other things partake in a portion of everything, while nous is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed with nothing, but is alone, itself by itself. For if it were not by itself, but were mixed with anything else, it would partake in all things if it were mixed with any; for in everything there is a portion of everything, as has been said by me in what goes before, and the things mixed with it would hinder it, so that it would have power over nothing in the same way that it has now being alone by itself. For it is the thinnest of all things and the purest, and it has all knowledge about everything and the greatest strength; and nous has power over all things, both greater and smaller, that have soul [psuchē].[11]


When thinking about the cosmos and what's going on with it, I think one has to get out of this world in regards to our thinking. Our thinking becomes bogged down with the day in and day out routine of life. When we gaze at the stars we see and observe the light, but what is it we don't see is what I'm interested in. :-)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


No, I don't believe space is a medium. That would be an aether, which used to be an accepted theory, but not so much anymore (given the complete lack of evidence and all). Fundamentally, space would seem to be composed of quantum systems, that's about it.


reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Yes, everything is from the quantum level. Quantum wavefunctions are seen as what we call "particles" and particles interact and combine to form matter at macroscopic scales.


reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It's hard to comment on dark energy, but dark matter would seem to be regular matter (fermions), just a form that only interacts gravitationally with other matter. If dark energy is truly dark energy, then it's composed of bosons, which makes it similar to photons...but it's hard to say.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
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.


Expansion is actually not a strong force at all. It's much weaker than gravity, and gravity is, by far, the weakest of the four fundamental forces. The nearer you get to the center of mass of an object or system, the stronger its gravity gets. The further out you get, the weaker gravity becomes, but, locally, gravity can be quite strong (strong enough to hold you on the surface of the Earth, hold the Earth around the Sun, and hold the Sun in the Milky Way). Expansion is the exact opposite (being an anti-gravitational force). It is locally very weak and gets significant only over very great (intergalactic) distances.



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?


The apparent relative velocity of expansion is about 70 km/s/Mpc (Hubble's constant).
The diameter of the Small Magellanic Cloud is 0.00214616206 Mpc.
Over that distance, the apparent velocity of one side relative to the other would be 150 m/s. Even the proper motion of each individual star is likely greater than that...universal expansion is negligible over such distances.

The largest known galaxy is IC 1101 with a diameter of 1.83956748 Mpc.
Over that distance, the apparent velocity of one side relative to the other would be 130 km/s. Again, negligible, given the magnitude of proper motion and the counteracting force of gravity.

Expansion only becomes significant over very large distances outside gravitationally bound structures.



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?


You're right about the clocks.
Now...we're not expanding along with the space that the EM wave is traveling through, are we? That would make us external observers.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
I know the meanings you can obtain from the Internet, I was more interested in your thought process regarding the " new age" movement that is not new at all!
There are certainly examples where my thought processes are not reflected in any wiki article. However in this case, the articles I cited overlap with my viewpoint pretty well and I tried to fill the gaps where they didn't.


Have you ever heard of Anaxagoras?? If not... Read the entire link... It's interesting!
Thanks for the link which is pretty long, and I'll read it when I have time, but I don't want to derail this thread if it's not related to the topic "Can Expansion Theory Really Explain Observed Universe?".


When we gaze at the stars we see and observe the light, but what is it we don't see is what I'm interested in. :-)
Me too. Even with our best telescopes we apparently can't see any more than 5% of it. The other 95% we can't see is a fascinating mystery.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"No, I don't believe space is a medium. That would be an aether, which used to be an accepted theory, but not so much anymore (given the complete lack of evidence and all). Fundamentally, space would seem to be composed of quantum systems, that's about it."

how can space expand unless it is something ( medium, aether)?

how can it have any qualities itself if it is nothing? or do the interactions of matter across distances of space, present qualities within the seemingly empty distances of space between the interacting matter?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"Yes, everything is from the quantum level. Quantum wavefunctions are seen as what we call "particles" and particles interact and combine to form matter at macroscopic scales. "

will there always exist the same quantity of quantum particles?

when "things" decay to the quantum level,, are the quantum particles that made up said thing, exactly the same upon being released, as they were when they got locked into creating and existing as the atoms in said thing?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I didn't say it wasn't "something"...I said it wasn't a medium. I described to you what I believe space is (a collection of quantum wavefunctions).


reply to post by ImaFungi
 


There won't always be the same number of quantum particles, but their total energy will always be the same (conservation of energy and all that...assuming the universe is an isolated system).
If an object were to be broken down, then, generally speaking, yes, the same particles that went into making the object would exist after the object disassociates. Technically, those particles exist even while the object is intact, given that the object is composed of the particles.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"I didn't say it wasn't "something"...I said it wasn't a medium. I described to you what I believe space is (a collection of quantum wavefunctions)"

ok,,, and matter is a collection of quantum wave functions,,, so matter and space are closely related compositionally? matter is pretty much denser forms of space?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Or more active forms of space.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"If an object were to be broken down, then, generally speaking, yes, the same particles that went into making the object would exist after the object disassociates. Technically, those particles exist even while the object is intact, given that the object is composed of the particles."

ok,, the particles that get locked into making an object,, compose an object, and eventually are disassociated with that object,, are the particles the same as when the universe began? meaning the smallest constituents do not decay or lose energy? perfect lego blocks to be used time and time again?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Or more active forms of space.


ok,,, and do you think quantum fluctuating space is infinite and existed before the macro material universe came into existence?

or do you think,,, actual nothing existed,,, and then before a finger can be snapped, infinite quantum fluctuations created the massive material universe, and infinite quantum fluctuating space?

what is the nature of quantum,,like where could it have come from? its all space and anything is and can be...but what exactly is it? if its everything and seemingly nothing?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Particles often change form. They can decay into smaller particles, or combine to form a larger particle. What stays constant is their total energy -- again, this is the conservation of energy.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


No one knows. That's where you're free to daydream.

ChaoticOrder's thread, "Before the Big Bang," was one possible answer of many.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Not at all derailing this thread with that link so please stop worrying about that, It's actually helping me show that the expansion theory may not be a correct theory at all, in my view could be off by a word and be an actual expressing universe. The link does not show this only but it shows different ideas and theories.

Im educated enough to know not only basics of physics, QM and love philosophy too, so please know I think about this stuff all the time and it's a passion of mine, well one of many but I do love thinking about the different theories but when a topic is termed expansiom theory to help explain the observable universe my mind wants others to be on the same page especially with the basics.

What are we ( keyword WE) observing first and foremost? The basics of the observation of the universe has many perceptions upon observing so the basics such as light matter and energy would first need to be understood first... And that's where I came into this thread.


The link I passed on to you talks about nous, named philosophers and spoke about their beliefs and who used the term and also how they seem to believe in a Universal Mind..... Intellect Philosophy, describing the source of order in nature.

Before science was born philosophy existed. Some of our great thinkers of the past had great ideas.

edit on 27-8-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
What are we ( keyword WE) observing first and foremost? The basics of the observation of the universe has many perceptions upon observing so the basics such as light matter and energy would first need to be understood first... And that's where I came into this thread.
That's an interesting point because the next generation space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope is being designed to see what we humans can't see...infrared. The reason for this is the expansion of the universe results in such great redshifts of more distant objects that limiting our observations to visible light may be limiting what we can observe. So WE are for the most part not observing infrared. Our eyes can't see that. We build instruments which can see infrared which then translate those wavelengths into something we can interpret with our senses.


Before science was born philosophy existed. Some of our great thinkers of the past had great ideas.
Of course I have great respect for great minds of the past, but I think many of them would have respect for the scientific method we have if they were alive today. At the time Plato lived, (from your link that you suggested relates to this thread but I'm still not quite sure how it does) the concept of infrared wavelengths was not understood, yet this turns out to be critical to advancing our observation of the most distant objects which are redshifted so far that infrared wavelengths are relevant. I don't fault Plato for this, but I do point out there were limitations in ancient scientific knowledge.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You really don't know who's Stephen Hawking??? You actually don't know he's the new Einstein of our time, teaching mathematic at Cambridge, the position Isaac Newton had one century ago?





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join