A thought experiment regarding the nature of space expansion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion revolves around a thought experiment concerning the nature of space expansion, exploring how space might behave under hypothetical conditions. Participants examine the implications of expanding space on physical objects, light propagation, and the conceptual understanding of spatial expansion in the context of modern physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a scenario where a device expands a cubic meter of space, questioning the effects on a ruler placed in that space and the behavior of light across it.
  • Another participant argues that the ruler remains the same size, suggesting that forces like gravity and electromagnetism dominate over the expansion of space.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the feasibility of the thought experiment, noting that there is no observer outside the universe and that such a machine cannot exist.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology used to describe space expansion, with some participants highlighting the differences between "growing," "expanding," and "stretching." One participant mentions that expanding space separates matter without expanding it.
  • A later reply introduces the idea that spacetime might exist in discrete amounts, akin to quanta, and questions the mainstream understanding of expanding space.
  • Another participant emphasizes the role of Doppler shift in understanding the apparent expansion of the universe and clarifies that rulers do not expand, but rather appear shorter due to relative motion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of space expansion and its implications. There is no consensus on the effects of the thought experiment or the terminology used to describe spatial phenomena.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their thought experiment, particularly regarding the inability to create a machine that expands space and the challenges of visualizing scenarios that break known physical laws. There is also a noted ambiguity in the definitions of terms related to space expansion.

  • #31
Since we get this kind of discussion fairly often as newcomers join the forum maybe I'll try to boil it down to something easier to remember. As a rough rule of thumb to get the recession rate (in units of c) from redshifts like z = 3 and 4, divide by 2. Or if you like decimal numbers multiply z by 0.5.

This gives the approximate recession rate when light was emitted. For instance for z = 3 the recession was a bit over 1.5 c, so that's right.
For z = 4 the recession rate was a bit over 2.0 c, so right again.
For z =5 this rule gives 2.5c and the right answer is 2.4 c, so still close.

As a crude approx therefore, you get the recession (when light was emitted) by multiplying redshift by a factor of 0.5. This works roughly in the range z = 3 to 5.

For larger redshifts up to z = 10 the factor to use is more like 0.4, which is usually a bit on the conservative side.

For z = 6 this gives 2.4c (the right answer is 2.75)
For z = 7 this gives 2.8c (the right answer is 3.0)
For z = 8 it gives 3.2c (the right answer is 3.4)
For z = 9 it gives 3.6c (the right answer is 3.7)
For z = 10 it gives 4.0c (the right answer!)

And the earliest protogalaxies are around z = 10. In a sense we don't have to go any farther with our approximation. At z=10 they were just beginning to form. Beyond that we can SEE stuff (e.g. CMB at z = 1100) but we don't normally see galaxies because they mostly haven't formed yet. So that factor of 0.4 works over a useful range.

check this by googling "cosmocalc 2010"
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K