- #71
Tayler
- 35
- 7
I meant everyone! Haha where I'm from the word "guys" is used not so gender specific.Will Learn said:@Tayler
All the guys? What about the girls? Anyway, best wishes to you (and everyone).
I meant everyone! Haha where I'm from the word "guys" is used not so gender specific.Will Learn said:@Tayler
All the guys? What about the girls? Anyway, best wishes to you (and everyone).
You're welcome (can't decide if I actually mean "thanks" here... ). It's a part of why we're here.Carpe Physicum said:I really appreciate your patience with us laypeople.
I think you are overthinking it. A physical ruler, like you might buy in a stationery shop, does not expand because it is a bound system - the atoms are held together by electromagnetic forces. So if you could lay a lot of 1m rulers between here and a galaxy a few hundred megaparsecs away, you would find gaps opening between the rulers (or a gap appearing at the end between the last ruler and the galaxy or something - it depends a bit how you set up the rulers). That's a way to conceptualise what we're talking about here. Chunks of matter do not expand, and nearby galaxies (which are bound together by gravity) do not get further apart, but galactic clusters do.Carpe Physicum said:Is it my concept of ruler/distance that's off?
Okay that makes sense. And that doesn't seem so complex an idea that it couldn't be included in various books about the subject for laypeople.Ibix said:You're welcome (can't decide if I actually mean "thanks" here... ). It's a part of why we're here.
I think you are overthinking it. A physical ruler, like you might buy in a stationery shop, does not expand because it is a bound system - the atoms are held together by electromagnetic forces. So if you could lay a lot of 1m rulers between here and a galaxy a few hundred megaparsecs away, you would find gaps opening between the rulers (or a gap appearing at the end between the last ruler and the galaxy or something - it depends a bit how you set up the rulers). That's a way to conceptualise what we're talking about here. Chunks of matter do not expand, and nearby galaxies (which are bound together by gravity) do not get further apart, but galactic clusters do.
Unfortunately, the aim of popsci is more around entertainment and building up public enthusiasm about science than teaching useful models. To be fair, professionals spend literally years studying and learning about this stuff and there's only so much you can say about so much in a short book, but it is a problem.Carpe Physicum said:Okay that makes sense. And that doesn't seem so complex an idea that it couldn't be included in various books about the subject for laypeople.
That isn't a question that can be answered because you're asking about how the universe would be if it weren't like it is. Who knows? You would have to invent a complete mathematical implementation of a consistent system of physics that had the properties you want - which may not even be possible.Carpe Physicum said:Follow on - what would it look like IF the bound systems themselves were expanding too (but such that we could still use them for measurement) but some other aspect wasn't expanding?
It isn't a rubber sheet, no, and such pictures are deeply misleading. However the curvature is directly measurable, so it's probably not correct to say that it isn't physically curved, whatever it actually is.Carpe Physicum said:I believe that doesn't mean it's physically curved like illustrations depict,
Probably.Carpe Physicum said:I guess this is speculation and not allowed.
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/how-to-avoid-breaking-physics-with-your-what-if-question/Carpe Physicum said:what would it look like IF the bound systems themselves were expanding too ...
The very fact that atoms don't expand along makes that we can perceive expansion. Otherwise all distances between particles would grow ar equal rates making an expansion look as non-existing. Only if there were an outside you could see it grow.Tayler said:Please understand that I am a professional car detailer, not an astrophysicist. Hence the question. If space is expanding, and atoms contain space. Would that mean that the atoms themselves would also be expanding? Making not only the universe expand but also everything contained in the universe i.e matter? Either atoms have 0.00% space inside of them or we are all expanding at the same accelerated rate of the expansion of space, or the universe.
The current understanding is that atoms are incredibly small, with a diameter of about 0.1 nanometers. This means that a single human hair is about 1 million times thicker than an atom.
There is ongoing research and debate about this topic. Some theories suggest that atoms can expand under certain conditions, such as extreme temperatures or pressures. However, this has not been definitively proven yet.
If it is proven that atoms can expand, it would challenge our current understanding of the fundamental building blocks of matter. It could also have implications for various scientific fields, such as chemistry and physics.
Scientists are using various methods, such as particle accelerators and high-pressure chambers, to study the behavior of atoms under different conditions. They are also analyzing data from past experiments to look for any evidence of atom expansion.
If atoms can be manipulated to expand, it could lead to advancements in technology, such as more efficient energy production and storage. It could also potentially open up new possibilities in fields like medicine and materials science.