Is the universe really expanding?

In summary: The red-shift is not a "look" but an actual difference in the frequency of the radiation. Shrinking the scale would also mean that the atoms were smaller and that would cause a change in the frequency of the radiation. So, you can't just "shrink" things, you would have to have some mechanism to account for the change in frequency, and that's where the problem lies. In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of dark energy and the expansion of the universe. There is a question raised about whether the expansion is caused by dark energy or if it is an illusion due to local space contracting
  • #36
Cosmobrain said:
... as Michio Kaku likes to call it ...

Just so you are aware, there are numerous threads on this forum which point out that Kaku is a basically full of kaka when it comes to this stuff. He is a popularize of the worst sort and will say anything to sell books. He USED to be a real physicist but that ended years ago.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #37
No-where-man said:
Yes, if our universe is one of many than yes, it makes sense that it is spinning in relation to other universes.

And just what do you think that MEANS? Even if there ARE other universes (an idea that I think is nonsense but I know it is believed to be possible by some serious physicists) and even IF our universe were in some sense rotating about other "bubbles" (again, almost certainly a nonsensical metaphor even if there ARE other universes), it is irrelevant to the OP's question because it obviously has not effect in our universe. If it did there would be a preferred frame of reference in our universe and there is not.

Do you not understand this concept of no preferred frame?
 
  • #38
Cosmobrain said:
Sorry Chronos, but I have to reply to this.

There are several theories nowadays that support the Multiverse hypothesis. If our Universe is one of many, then it makes sense to say that it is spinning. It is spinning in relation to other universes or the hyperspace, as if it was a bubble, as Michio Kaku likes to call it. The difference is that a bubble has air in it and the Universe has space in it (and it is also much much bigger, needless to say)

See the post directly above.
 
  • #39
We can't be certain. There are many ways to interpret what we've observed. It's assumed that space-time itself and the laws of physics are generally consistent throughout the universe. If that's true then our observations support expansion. That doesn't make expansion true. In fact, it's certainly not the entire truth. Simply thinking about expansion may give you some sense of how much of the truth we still need to work out. Our data does give us great confidence though.

If the universe is not generally consistent things get interesting. That possibility is very upsetting to many people. Change is always upsetting.

Personally, I think it's typically egocentrics of us to assume that the entire universe is the same as the bit we live in. I guess well have to wait and see. In the mean time, here's a paper with a fun thought experiment which is reasonably approachable.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4630.pdf
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
164
Replies
54
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
519
Replies
6
Views
384
Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
999
Replies
6
Views
461
Back
Top