How could the universe be speeding up?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter j6p
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of the universe's accelerating expansion, exploring various theories and concepts related to this topic. Participants examine the implications of initial conditions from the Big Bang, the role of negative energy, the Cosmological Constant, and the nature of space itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the universe is not slowing down after an initial push from the Big Bang, suggesting that a projectile should decelerate once it leaves a propelling force.
  • Negative energy is proposed by some as a potential explanation for the universe's acceleration, with references to its possible existence during the inflationary period.
  • Others discuss the Cosmological Constant, noting that it introduces a constant expansion energy that does not diminish over time, though its small value raises questions that remain unresolved among theorists.
  • There is a contention regarding the nature of the universe's expansion, with some asserting that it is not expanding into anything, but rather that distances between objects are increasing.
  • Participants express curiosity about the implications of a collapsing universe and what would exist in the space left behind, suggesting a need for something to displace as the fabric of space expands.
  • Some assert that space is necessary for movement, emphasizing that the universe is moving and expanding within space, regardless of how it is defined.
  • Questions are raised about the role of gravity in the long-term behavior of the universe, particularly whether gravitational effects from massive objects ever reach zero or only diminish with distance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of views on the nature of the universe's expansion and the role of different forces and energies. There is no consensus on the explanations provided, and multiple competing theories and interpretations remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about the nature of space and energy, and the discussion includes unresolved questions regarding the implications of the Cosmological Constant and the behavior of gravity over vast distances.

j6p
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
If there was some kind of a push from an initial big bang, shouldn't we be slowing down? I would think that when a projectile leaves the influence of a propelling force it should start slowing down.
In our case the propelling force would be the big bang and the material universe would be the projectile.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Negative energy is one theory. This is theorized to have existed in abundance during the universe's inflationary period and some believe still abounds today
 
If the Einstein equations describing the universe have an extra term in them, the so-called Cosmological Constant, they will automatically generate the expansion energy, which will always be there, and won't run out or down. It turns out that they can use the estimated acceleration, which they can calculate from observing ancient supernovas, to figure the value of the consmological constant, known as Lamba ([tex]Lambda[/tex}. <br /> <br /> It works out to be extremely tiny, but not zero. This is a puzzle, because theorists could understand if it were zero, or if it were some ordinary number like 3 or 100 or something, but almost zero but not quite seems to call for an explanation, and while there are dozens of papers proposing one answer or another, none of them has convinced a large number of cosmologists that it is right.[/tex]
 
j6p said:
I would think that when a projectile leaves the influence of a propelling force it should start slowing down.

After the projectile leaves hte "influence", it continues on at a constant speed. You might be getting confused because we see things different on earth.. but its because there's air resistance. If there was no air resistance, u could throw a ball and it wouldn't slow down a bit.
 
Ya got me Pengwuino, I didn't think of that. But on the same line of thought, it wouldn't speed up.

As for the negative energy, that's what I believe it is. I'm trying to figure out how they (negative and positive energy) separated. My mind keeps taking me to the place where our universe is expanding into. What I see is an area of negative energy but if that were the case then we would be being pulled, stretched into that negative space and not pushed from a gigantic internal explosion. Could it be possible that there is something beyond our range of detection that is an area of negative energy or something like that? It would explain a lot of stuff.
 
j6p said:
My mind keeps taking me to the place where our universe is expanding into.

It isn't expanding into anything. What is happening is that the distance between things is increasing.
 
So if the universe started to collapse, that would mean that the distance between things is decreasing and there would be no outside.
What comes to mind is: what would be left in the space where those things were, before they collapsed. I figure there has to be something that the fabric is expanding into, it should be displacing something.
 
It is obvious to most people (at least to me and maybe j6p) that 'space' is necessary for any and all movement from the atomic level to the galactic. When anything moves, it is changing it's location in space. This is true both empirically and rationally. The Universe is moving and expanding in space. Whether one calls this space 'anything' or 'nothing' does not matter. How it moves or why it moves does not matter. Where it's final location is does not matter. The Universe is moving from space into space. Thank you for considering my opinion.
 
Last edited:
sd01g said:
It is obvious to most people (at least to me and maybe j6p) that 'space' is necessary for any and all movement from the atomic level to the galactic. When anything moves, it is changing it's location in space. This is true both empirically and rationally. The Universe is moving and expanding in space. Whether one calls this space 'anything' or 'nothing' does not matter. How it moves or why it moves does not matter. Where it's final location is does not matter. The Universe is moving from space into space. Thank you for considering my opinion.

There seems to be a large # of people who do think it matters. All this stuff :confused: :confused: me
 
  • #10
why not slow down

what about Gravity?

wouldn't that measure out ot something in the long run

i don't know much about it, but does gravity from one huge obeject(a galaxy) acting on another object ever reach 0 or does it just get very very small with increasing distance?
 
  • #11
Gaijin said:
what about Gravity?

wouldn't that measure out ot something in the long run

i don't know much about it, but does gravity from one huge obeject(a galaxy) acting on another object ever reach 0 or does it just get very very small with increasing distance?

It just gets smaller.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
18K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K