Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Expansion of space

  1. Nov 22, 2017 #61

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If an object is in free fall its trajectory is a 'geodesic'. In this case the object doesn't feel a force acting on it. This is true for Galaxies, planets orbiting around a star and apples falling down to Earth.
     
  2. Nov 22, 2017 #62

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    As @timdeeg has pointed out, this does not fit with observation because your model predicts that galaxies should feel a force, and they don't.

    The reason the concept of "space expanding" doesn't make sense is that "space" is frame-dependent, and the laws of physics are frame-independent. So whatever is going on in the universe, "space expanding" can't be a good description of it.
     
  3. Nov 22, 2017 #63

    rede96

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If I understood you correctly your saying that expansion is due to space time curvature. Correct?
     
  4. Nov 22, 2017 #64

    rede96

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was using ‘force’ in very loose terms just to indicate there was something going on to cause objects to move apart. I wasn’t implying they felt any force from acceleration. The way I thought about it wouldn’t be any different.
     
  5. Nov 22, 2017 #65

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Then you shouldn't use the word "force", because it will only lead to confusion. Not just for others, but for you. It leads you to think that "there was something going on to cause objects to move apart". There isn't. There is just the geometry of spacetime.

    To illustrate what I mean, consider tidal gravity: two objects free-falling radially above a gravitating mass (like the Earth), starting from slightly different altitudes. These objects will move apart as they fall. Is there "something going on" that causes this? If so, what is this "something"? If not, how is this case different from the expansion of the universe?
     
  6. Nov 22, 2017 #66

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, to know what geodesic means is not the clue to have a notion of what expansion means. But you can imagine two neighboring geodesics describing the trajectories of two objects. If the spacetime is curved then their geodesics accelerate relative to each other, in the case of an expanding universe they accelerate away from each other. Whereas if the spacetime is flat their relative acceleration is zero (which doesn't exclude of course that these particles move relative to each other with constant speed).
     
  7. Nov 22, 2017 #67

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This is not quite right. In a matter-dominated universe the expansion is decelerating, and the geodesics in question (the worldlines of comoving objects) are converging, not diverging. But the universe is still expanding.

    The correct definition of "expanding" for the universe is that the congruence of worldlines of comoving objects has a positive expansion scalar. Unfortunately, that's already getting beyond the "B" level of this thread. But you can find more information here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congr...atical_decomposition_of_a_timelike_congruence
     
  8. Nov 22, 2017 #68

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The expansion is due to the positive expansion scalar of the congruence of comoving worldlines (see my previous post). But the fact that such a congruence exists and has the properties it has (not just positive expansion, but every comoving observer sees the universe as homogeneous and isotropic) is due to the particular geometry of the spacetime in question (FRW spacetime).
     
  9. Nov 22, 2017 #69

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah yes, it follows from the second Friedmann equation that the second derivative of the scale factor is negative in this case (what I didn’t take into account). Thanks for correcting and for the link.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Expansion of space
  1. Expansion of space (Replies: 2)

  2. Expansion of space (Replies: 17)

  3. Expansion of space (Replies: 14)

  4. Expansion of space (Replies: 28)

  5. Expansion of Space (Replies: 54)

Loading...