- #1
enotstrebor
- 120
- 1
Cosmological expansion is volumetric. How does a space volume expand without expanding like the raisin bread model (non-isotropic redshift). Or how do you make a space volume "naturally" behave like a balloon surface.
mrspeedybob said:What differences are you asking about?
marcus said:Instead of the 2D surface of a familiar usual sphere, you have to imagine the 3D surface of a "hypersphere" the higher dim. analogy. So you think of us living in a 3D space, not able to point our fingers in any other direction. .
enotstrebor said:I will allow you to have an n-sphere (or any other geometry you chose) but the n-sphere must contain three dimensionally positioned galaxies (associated inter-galactic distance ?0-spheres?) which emit light in all three dimensional directions. Now expand your n-sphere (or whatever is equivalent) and show that for any and all galaxies the expansion results in an isotropic redshift.
Has it been done? Reference please.
marcus said:There must be some misunderstanding. As I understand it, the balloon surface is the 2-sphere and we simply raise the model up one dimension, to a 3-sphere.
enotstrebor said:It is clear that light traveling along the original balloon dimensions results in an isotopic redshift. But light must also travels along the new (raised) dimension. This dimension must be orthogonal to the other two as it is in the real world (even if not physically but only mathematically).
Now think how this new dimension behaves. As one example: Even if this model creates balloon "2-d" surfaces as combination of any two dimensions, i.e. three balloons, the expansion of all balloons would not result in isotropic behavior.
If you don't like three balloons, you can do it with two balloons, or a balloon and a line hoop (curved space) but when you add a third dimension, universe expansion comes out non-isotropic.
Give me your own example with a third dimension added or better yet a proof reference.
alt said:.. the expansion of all balloons would not result in isotropic behavior..
Indeed, this is just a beautiful way to express this, what appears to be absurdity. I've often pondered this in similar ways myself.
I've been checking back here for a response and further dialogue to your above, but alas - none so far ..
alt said:I've been checking back here for a response and further dialogue to your above, but alas - none so far ..
enotstrebor said:... as the people "in the know" probably no longer look at this thread.
marcus said:As I understand it, you like the raisin bread analogy and do not like the balloon analogy---.
enotstrebor said:In the raisin bread analogy as I know understand it was referencing the surface of the raisin bread, i.e. the same as the balloon analogy.
...
DavidMcC said:...Ashtekar predicted the "big bounce" on the basis of a time-reversed model. This has a big flaw, and obviously misses out the rest of the initial universe - what was actually the collapse of one massive body within the earlier universe spuriously becomes the entire universe.
...
DavidMcC said:I'm pretty sure that the fatal flaw in Ashtekar's cosmology is dropping the hyperspace continuum from the model...
Surely you jest, there is plenty of 'mathematical evidence' supporting LCDM. Are you saying FLRW is unsound? Mathematical vetting is as important as observational evidence in modern cosmology.DavidMcC said:Actually, Chronos, there is no such thing as "mathematical evidence"...
marcus said:Unfortunately I don't know what you mean by "dropping the hyperspace continuum". I don't see any paper by Ashtekar where he "drops the h. c." Do you know of such a paper?
Also I still have to ask the same question "what fatal flaw?".
It has not yet been shown that Asht. cosmology is flawed. It makes testable predictions. These have not yet been shown wrong.
So far there is no scientific evidence for any of the various "multiverse" fantasies. No rational basis to assume any of them are right. So far they are just stuff that various people have dreamed up. As far as I can tell from looking at your posts you seem to take some "multiverse" idea seriously. This makes me dubious of your other statements, David. Maybe you should start a thread on the topic "scientific evidence of a multiverse" and let people comment both credulously and skeptically---both pro and con. It could be educational, might make an interesting thread.
Chronos said:Surely you jest, there is plenty of 'mathematical evidence' supporting LCDM. Are you saying FLRW is unsound? Mathematical vetting is as important as observational evidence in modern cosmology.
The main difference between balloon expansion and raisin bread expansion is the mechanism by which they expand. Balloon expansion is caused by the stretching of the rubber material, while raisin bread expansion is caused by the release of gas bubbles during the baking process.
Balloons expand when they are filled with air or gas because the molecules of the gas are constantly moving and colliding with the walls of the balloon, causing it to stretch and expand.
Raisin bread expands when it is baked because the heat causes the gas bubbles trapped in the dough to expand and rise, causing the bread to rise and expand as well.
The expansion of a balloon can be affected by several factors, including the type and amount of gas or air used to fill it, the temperature of the environment, and the elasticity of the rubber material.
Yes, there is a limit to how much a balloon or raisin bread can expand. Balloons can only expand until the rubber material reaches its maximum stretch limit, while raisin bread can only expand until the dough is fully cooked and can no longer expand due to the firmness of the crust.