How does the expansion of the universe work?

[Puppy]

Hilbert's Hote

Hi
I love this paradox.
But truth be told its nonsensical.
It describes nothing other than infinity is equal to infinity...
I could be wrong?

 

[Drakkith]

Hi
I love this paradox.
But truth be told its nonsensical.
It describes nothing other than infinity is equal to infinity...
I could be wrong?

It's simply a way of explaining infinity. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[phinds]

Hi
I love this paradox.
But truth be told its nonsensical.
It describes nothing other than infinity is equal to infinity...
I could be wrong?

Yes, you are wrong to think it is nonsensical. As Drakkith says, it is a way of helping people understand infinity. There is nothing nonsensical about it, it simply addresses the fact that infinity does not fit well without preconceived notions of how numbers should work because it ISN'T a number. If you don't understand that, give it time. You'll get it eventually.

 

[gjonesy]

Of course, it may be better to avoid using the word "moving" at all.

Expansion..., something doesn't have to move to expand...much like my ex-wife's backside she doesn't move and its expanding at an exponential rate , its so massive it has its own gravity!...

 

[Micheth]

(1):

A meter stick is a whole other issue, it is generally being held together by other forces which at short distances overcome expansion by a lot.

(2):

Fine, but this effect is even smaller than the stick's self-gravity. Locally, the presence of the stick will be sufficient for space to not undergo accelerated expansion. Dark energy dominates at large scales only.

Hi, another layman butting in here...

If I read the above correctly, aren't (1) and (2) contradictory?
In (1), if the forces (in the case of the ruler, electromagnetic rather than gravitational) are overcoming the expansion, to me that implies that the forces must actually be a smidgen greater than what we calculate them to be (since we calculate the forces assuming molecules to be "at rest" with one another, by which I only mean not being activately separated by universal expansion).
They must be some small bit greater in order to "overcome the expansion".
(Because if there were no forces, they would normally be further distant from each other by the degree of the expansion).
Or maybe universal expansion is being figured in when we determine the magnitude of intermolecular forces? (and the gravitational constant?)

In (2), on the other hand, it seems to say that the ruler simply being there, the presence of the matter, precludes the space from undergoing expansion.
But what would be the mechanism for that? Is it simply an ad hoc explanation?

I prefer (1) :-) "Prefer" meaning that it makes more sense to me that the laws of physics (including spatial expansion) apply everywhere even for electromagnetically/nuclear force/gravitationally bond entitites.

 

[PeterDonis]

if the forces (in the case of the ruler, electromagnetic rather than gravitational) are overcoming the expansion, to me that implies that the forces must actually be a smidgen greater than what we calculate them to be (since we calculate the forces assuming molecules to be "at rest" with one another, by which I only mean not being activately separated by universal expansion).

Universal expansion in itself doesn't "actively separate" anything; it doesn't exert any force.

Dark energy does cause a very, very, very tiny force that acts to try to separate the atoms in a ruler; but I emphasize very, very, very tiny. Much smaller even than a "smidgen". But dark energy corresponds to accelerating expansion, not just expansion.

 

[Micheth]

Universal expansion in itself doesn't "actively separate" anything; it doesn't exert any force.
Dark energy does cause a very, very, very tiny force that acts to try to separate the atoms in a ruler; but I emphasize very, very, very tiny. Much smaller even than a "smidgen". But dark energy corresponds to accelerating expansion, not just expansion.

Hello Peter,

I didn't mean to suggest I think the expansion is a force, i think I understand that it's meant to be rather something difficult to put into words, maybe more like extra space being "created" where none was before, or the space itself being somehow magnified, rather than a "force" pushing objects from each other.
I do get that much.
But it is my point above, that the resulting situation is such that object A and object B are caused to be further from each other than they would have been without the expansion.
That's what I was referring to, that needs to be "overcome" by intermolecular (or gravitational) forces. Not a force, but the increased distance between A and B.

 

[PeterDonis]

the resulting situation is such that object A and object B are caused to be further from each other than they would have been without the expansion.
That's what I was referring to, that needs to be "overcome" by intermolecular (or gravitational) forces. Not a force, but the increased distance between A and B.

And the point I'm making is that anything that has to be "overcome" by intermolecular or gravitational forces is a force. Saying that A and B "are caused to be further from each other" is just a confusing way of describing a force; it isn't something different.

To put it another way: what matters isn't the words, it's the physics, and the physics is that there is nothing due to "expansion" (if we leave out dark energy) that needs to be "overcome" by the forces that hold bound systems together. Not a "force", not "increased distance", not "creation of more space"--nothing.

 

[Micheth]

And the point I'm making is that anything that has to be "overcome" by intermolecular or gravitational forces is a force. Saying that A and B "are caused to be further from each other" is just a confusing way of describing a force; it isn't something different.
To put it another way: what matters isn't the words, it's the physics, and the physics is that there is nothing due to "expansion" (if we leave out dark energy) that needs to be "overcome" by the forces that hold bound systems together. Not a "force", not "increased distance", not "creation of more space"--nothing.

Hm? I thought "being further from each other" is exactly the point of universal expansion?
That is, increased distance between entities.
Given (non-gravitationally/force-bound) entities A and B, let the universe expand another XX million years and it will then take me X amount of time longer to go from A to B than it does today.
Isn't that universal expansion? (not invoking a force).

 

[PeterDonis]

I thought "being further from each other" is exactly the point of universal expansion?

It is if you are looking at the motion of objects that are not bound. See below.

Given (non-gravitationally/force-bound) entities A and B, let the universe expand another XX million years and it will then take me X amount of time longer to go from A to B than it does today.

Yes, as long as A and B are not bound. But if A and B are bound, expansion does not introduce anything extra that the binding between them must overcome.

 

[Micheth]

It is if you are looking at the motion of objects that are not bound. See below.
Yes, as long as A and B are not bound. But if A and B are bound, expansion does not introduce anything extra that the binding between them must overcome.

But if the expansion applies equally to all aspects of the universe, even bound A&B would have been further distant from each other had they not been bound, correct?
Therefore, their being bound (i.e. not being further distant from each other, = not moving apart) must have overcome what would have been the increased distance.
I don't see how that can't be the case?

 

[PeterDonis]

if the expansion applies equally to all aspects of the universe,

It doesn't. That's the point I'm making. You are trying to apply the concept to something it doesn't apply to.

 

[Micheth]

It doesn't. That's the point I'm making. You are trying to apply the concept to something it doesn't apply to.

But why wouldn't it apply equally to everything everywhere?
Wouldn't the safest assumption be that it does?

 

[PeterDonis]

why wouldn't it apply equally to everything everywhere?
Wouldn't the safest assumption be that it does?

No. The safest assumption is that it only applies where we observe it to apply--to the average motion of the matter in the universe on large scales, tens to hundreds of millions of light-years and larger. On smaller distance scales we observe systems to be bound--galaxy clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, etc.

But that's not really the best way of asking the question. The best way of asking the question is to look at the actual model of the universe that is used in cosmology, and ask what it actually says about expansion. When you look at the actual model, you find that it treats the matter and energy in the universe as a continuous fluid, not a collection of objects. Expansion in the model corresponds to a decrease over time in the density of the fluid. But this is obviously not a correct model on all scales; the universe is not filled with a fluid of uniform density that slowly decreases over time. So we can't expect to use the concept of "expansion" on distance scales where the distribution of matter is obviously not uniform. We can only use it in an average sense, on distance scales large enough that we can view the matter as being uniform to a good enough approximation.

Furthermore, in the model, the expansion (leaving out dark energy) is not due to any force that is making space expand; it is purely due to the inertia of the matter and energy. In other words, on average, the matter and energy in the universe is flying apart because it was flying apart in the past, not because there is anything pushing it apart. So matter that is not flying apart--matter that is bound--doesn't have to overcome anything to keep from flying apart.

 

[Micheth]

Micheth said: ↑
why wouldn't it apply equally to everything everywhere?
Wouldn't the safest assumption be that it does?

No. The safest assumption is that it only applies where we observe it to apply--to the average motion of the matter in the universe on large scales, tens to hundreds of millions of light-years and larger. On smaller distance scales we observe systems to be bound--galaxy clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, etc.

That makes me wonder, what about the "inbetween" scales...?
If there is no separation between objects (or fluids) on "smaller scales" (galaxy clusters as smaller scales hurts my brain! :-) ) but only on larger scales, then what about say, galaxies that are not technically gravitationally bound but affecting each others' movements by their mass?
Would they be flying apart only somewhat, but not by the full amount of the spatial expansion?

Furthermore, in the model, the expansion (leaving out dark energy) is not due to any force that is making space expand; it is purely due to the inertia of the matter and energy. In other words, on average, the matter and energy in the universe is flying apart because it was flying apart in the past, not because there is anything pushing it apart. So matter that is not flying apart--matter that is bound--doesn't have to overcome anything to keep from flying apart.

This is the first time I've heard that spatial expansion is due to the inertia of the matter...? (Was understanding it has a property or activity of space itself, with matter just being a passive passenger. Oh well.)
But if the expansion is due to the inertia of the matter moving out in all directions, then that begins to sound to me more like a "conventional explosion" that we're supposed to be getting out of our heads when trying to understand the Big Bang...

 

[Jorrie]

then what about say, galaxies that are not technically gravitationally bound but affecting each others' movements by their mass?
Would they be flying apart only somewhat, but not by the full amount of the spatial expansion?

Despite what Peter stated in general, yes, this is exactly why we have structure in the matter of the universe. When there is a local over-density (higher than the average), increase in distance between those objects will be slower than the 'Hubble flow' for their distance apart. Especially in a decelerating phase of expansion, at a certain distance/density regime they will start to free-fall towards each other and possibly go into orbit around a gravitational center. If the energy distribution was completely homogeneous, this could not have happened.

But if the expansion is due to the inertia of the matter moving out in all directions, then that begins to sound to me more like a "conventional explosion" that we're supposed to be getting out of our heads when trying to understand the Big Bang...

I suppose it is a case of interpretation, but as Peter said, the inertia is about the total energy content of the space, including matter, radiation and possibly dark energy. One could rather think about it as "space flying apart" and it is doing so from everywhere, not from some "point of explosion". Exactly how space started to fly apart is not certain, but there are viable theories for that.

 

[PeterDonis]

If there is no separation between objects (or fluids) on "smaller scales"

That's not what I said. I said that if we look on smaller scales, objects may be bound together (a galaxy cluster or galaxy or solar system is bound by gravity; a star or planet is bound by gravity and intermolecular forces). Objects that are bound can still be separated by some distance.

what about say, galaxies that are not technically gravitationally bound but affecting each others' movements by their mass?

The overall mass of the universe affects the motion of everything. In a model with no dark energy, the expansion gradually slows down over time (this was happening in our universe up until a few billion years ago when the effect of dark energy became significant). This gradual slowdown is due to the gravity of the matter. (The gravity of the matter is still there if dark energy is significant, like it is in our universe now; it's just that the slor wawdown due to gravity is less than the speedup due to dark energy.)

Would they be flying apart only somewhat, but not by the full amount of the spatial expansion?

Here is a better way of describing what you're trying to say here: there is an average motion of the matter in the universe, which we describe as "expansion". But individual objects or systems--galaxy clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets--might not be moving with exactly the average motion. One main reason for that is the gravitational effect of individual objects or systems on other individual objects or systems. This effect is not included in the cosmological models that describe the "average" motion, any more than the motion of the individual molecules of a fluid, due to interactions between the molecules, is included in the models that describe the fluid as a continuous substance.

This is the first time I've heard that spatial expansion is due to the inertia of the matter...?

It's not often phrased that way, but that's what the model says. (I'm about to post a response to Jorrie that elaborates on this somewhat.)

 

[PeterDonis]

One could rather think about it as "space flying apart"

But there is a problem with thinking about it this way: it leads to incorrect inferences like the one Micheth is drawing, that leads him to ask the questions he's asking, which make perfect sense given the interpretation of "space expansion" that he is using--it's just that that intepretation is not correct, given the actual physics. If you think of "space flying apart", you naturally think of that as a causal agent, something that can push objects apart, that needs to be "overcome" by bound systems in order for them to remain bound. But there is no such causal agent in the actual model that cosmologists use.

"Space expansion" is just an artifact of using a particular coordinate chart; we could, if we wanted to, set up a chart in which there was no "space expansion". The actual physics is contained in invariants, and there is no invariant in the model that corresponds to "space expansion pushing things apart". In the model, things are flying apart because they were flying apart in the past--i.e., it's purely due to inertia. As I noted previously, this model only describes the average motion of the matter in the universe; individual objects or systems can have different motions from the average motion, and those motions can be affected by the gravity of other individual objects or systems, just as you describe. But again, you can account for the motion of those individual objects purely by looking at inertia plus the gravity of other individual objects; there is no extra effect you have to include due to "space expansion".

 

[tedbmoss]

so does the universe expand to infinity? will atoms eventually fly apart?

 

[PeterDonis]

does the universe expand to infinity?

According to our best current model, the universe is already spatially infinite.

will atoms eventually fly apart?

According to our best current model, no. As I said in previous posts, the expansion itself exerts no force on bound objects. There is a very tiny force due to dark energy (which causes accelerated expansion, not expansion per se), but according to our best current model, it is constant and therefore will never cause atoms (or any bound systems we currently see) to fly apart.

 

[phinds]

so does the universe expand to infinity? will atoms eventually fly apart?

Just to add to Peter's post, if the universe is now finite then no, it could not possibly "expand to infinity" since finite things cannot becomes infinite. As Peter says, if it is already infinite then it will just continue to get bigger (but that will still be "infinite in extent")

 

[rede96]

This is the first time I've heard that spatial expansion is due to the inertia of the matter...? (Was understanding it has a property or activity of space itself, with matter just being a passive passenger. Oh well.)

"Space expansion" is just an artifact of using a particular coordinate chart; we could, if we wanted to, set up a chart in which there was no "space expansion".

For a layman, this is one thing that still confuses me. It's easier (for me) to think that expansion as simply objects, such as distant galaxies, moving apart due to some initial inertia long ago. Those objects (or energy) that were close enough to be gravitationally bound remain so. That also makes intuitive sense.

But then there are other consequences of expansion such as cosmological redshift of photons that can't be explained by inertia. The wavelength of a photon is lengthened due to expansion (which is different than Doppler shift.) and the explanation often given is that this is due the 'space' expanding as the electromagnetic wave travels through it.

So we can't really think of expansion as just inertia.

From what I understand about inflation (pre big bang expansion) the theory is that there was some very high energy scalar field (high as in compared to todays vacuum energy) which led to the universe (whatever was the universe at that time) to inflate exponentially (e-foldings) many times to almost the size it is now. In the process this field collapsed and in doing so created the particles we know from the standard model.

So my way of understanding it is that this inflation process created the initial inertia, but not only for the particles but also for what ever constitutes empty space. As it is a scalar field it wouldn't dilute as it grew. So expansion can be thought of as inertia in that sense. And that seems to have something to do with why a photon losses energy as it travels through space (Again, just my way of thinking about it!)

Also, as the FRW equations are basically energy conservation, then I would have thought that the energy that the photon loses is transferred back into this 'potential energy' of empty space or in other words, back into this expanding scalar field which we call expanding space. EDIT: I think that should be kinetic energy of expanding space, not potential. Like I have said, this is really just my way of thinking about it.

 

[PeterDonis]

there are other consequences of expansion such as cosmological redshift of photons that can't be explained by inertia

That's true; but it can't be explained by "space expansion pushing things apart" either. See below.

the explanation often given is that this is due the 'space' expanding as the electromagnetic wave travels through it.

Yes; in fact the best quick way of interpreting the redshift of an object is as a measure of the ratio of the scale factor of the universe at reception to the scale factor at emission. For example, light we are seeing with a redshift of $z = 1$ was emitted when the scale factor was $1 + z = 2$ times smaller than it is now. This is often described as the expansion of space "stretching" the waves.

However, there is a problem with this if we interpret this "stretching" as exerting some kind of actual physical force on the light: there is nothing in the model corresponding to any such force. The redshifted light we see from distant galaxies freely propagated from them to us through empty space. It wasn't confined in a waveguide or a fiber optic cable or anything of the sort--those are ways that we can "exert force" on light in the laboratory in order to change how it propagates. Nothing like that is being done to the light we see from distant galaxies, and nothing in the model corresponds to any such thing.

IMO this just illustrates that we can't always expect curved spacetime to correspond to our intuitions about how "space" and "time" work. The way to fix that is to fix our intuitions, or at least to know not to give them weight unless we can show, using the actual mathematical model, that there is actual physics that corresponds to them.

my way of understanding it is that this inflation process created the initial inertia

For the matter and energy that was hot, dense, and rapidly expanding immediately after the end of inflation, yes. See below.

but not only for the particles but also for what ever constitutes empty space

Not in the sense you mean it, no. Empty space does not have"inertia. A scalar field does, but a scalar field is not empty space. (Neither is dark energy, which according to some models is a very, very tiny bit of the inflaton field that was left over after inflation ended.)

that seems to have something to do with why a photon losses energy as it travels through space

No, it doesn't; the cosmological redshift does not have anything to do with "inertia of empty space" (since there's no such thing, see above), or with any scalar field or dark energy. The reason light from distant galaxies is redshifted when we observe it has no simple intuitive picture that corresponds to it; both of the commonly used intuitive pictures--that it's just a Doppler shift due to the galaxies moving away from us, and that it's due to the light being stretched by the expansion of space--have serious limitations (your post illustrates the limitations of the latter interpretation--the limitations of the Doppler shift interpretation become obvious when we consider redshifts large enough that the implied speed of the emitting galaxy away from us diverges significantly from the "recession velocity" that appears in the FRW cosmological models). Again, the way to fix that is to retrain your intuitions, or at least to know enough not to give them weight in this instance.

 

[rede96]

That's true; but it can't be explained by "space expansion pushing things apart" either. See below.

Sure, I agree that we shouldn't think of expansion as some force pushing things apart. But general expansion (not including dark energy) does exert a very tiny, tiny pressure. So for example an atom is very, very slightly bigger than it would be if the universe was static. Of course as you have already said that force is so small it really doesn't have any measureable effect and is no where near enough to over come the forces that hold an atom together. However if we place two atoms far enough apart in space, which are at rest wrt each other, then expansion (even without dark energy) will cause the distance between them to grow.

So how I interpret that is expansion can't be due to just past inertia (of matter) alone. This pressure, which must be coming from 'something', must also have an influence on how things move apart, especially things separated by very large distances of course. I'm just not sure what to call this 'something'. Unless its just energy density, which would make sense but it is more than just inertia.

Not in the sense you mean it, no. Empty space does not have"inertia. A scalar field does, but a scalar field is not empty space. (Neither is dark energy, which according to some models is a very, very tiny bit of the inflaton field that was left over after inflation ended.)

Ok, sure. I guess that is just my poor terminology. I think the point I was trying to make is there is something else besides inertia contributing to expansion as mentioned above.

No, it doesn't; the cosmological redshift does not have anything to do with "inertia of empty space" (since there's no such thing, see above), or with any scalar field or dark energy.

Ah ok. But by what process does the photon lose energy? If space wasn't expanding then I assume there would be no energy loss. But as space is expanding and isn't completely empty, then light must be propagating through 'something' and as this something expands slowly, then the energy from the photon is transferred into kinetic energy of the expansion of that 'something'. Does that make sense? But I just don't know what to call it :)

 

[PeterDonis]

general expansion (not including dark energy) does exert a very tiny, tiny pressure.

Please prove this claim by showing, explicitly, where in the math this very tiny, tiny pressure shows up, and how it affects the equilibrium state of a bound system. (The standard GR answer is that there is no such thing in the math, and no such very tiny, tiny pressure. So I don't expect you to be able to do this. But if you can't, you should retract your claim.)

as you have already said that force is so small it really doesn't have any measureable effect

No, that's not what I said. I said that if we exclude dark energy, there is no force at all. I also said dark energy does exert a tiny force, but your claim, quoted above, excluded that.

 

[PeterDonis]

by what process does the photon lose energy?

I think you need to read this article by Sean Carroll:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

 

[rede96]

Please prove this claim by showing, explicitly, where in the math this very tiny, tiny pressure shows up, and how it affects the equilibrium state of a bound system. (The standard GR answer is that there is no such thing in the math, and no such very tiny, tiny pressure. So I don't expect you to be able to do this. But if you can't, you should retract your claim.)

I got that from one of Leonard Susskind's lectures on cosmology. (See below, time index 2mins, 37seconds, watch for about 5 mins.) He is answering questions from the previous lecture where they went through the math.

 

[PeterDonis]

(See below, time index 2mins, 37seconds, watch for about 5 mins.)

His statements here are frustratingly vague. I can't tell for sure whether or not he means the effect of dark energy when he talks about a very, very tiny force--or even if he means the same thing each time he talks about it. He doesn't actually show the math that he's referring to, and he mentions dark energy several times but also mentions expansion several times without mentioning dark energy. If he did show the math, I don't think there is anything in the math that he could point to that would show a very, very tiny force in the absence of dark energy. (In the presence of dark energy, of course, there is one, and towards the end of the 5-minute segment you refer to, he does talk about the tiny effect that dark energy has on an atom.)

 

[Jorrie]

If he did show the math, I don't think there is anything in the math that he could point to that would show a very, very tiny force in the absence of dark energy. (In the presence of dark energy, of course, there is one, and towards the end of the 5-minute segment you refer to, he does talk about the tiny effect that dark energy has on an atom.)

I have before used the standard cosmic deceleration parameter to get the "cosmic tidal force" between two ends of a bound structure, based on proper distance D and cosmological time T.
d^2 D/dT^2= D H_0^2 (\Omega_\Lambda-\Omega_m/(2a^3))
This causes a small force working with or against the internal structure binding forces.
It shows that the only time there is no compression or stretching force on the structure is when \Omega_\Lambda-\Omega_m/(2a^3) = 0, i.e. a constant, coasting expansion rate. Long ago, when it was negative, the 'force' was compressing and today, due to Lambda, it is positive and the 'force' is stretching in nature.

Peter, do you agree with this?

 

[PeterDonis]

Peter, do you agree with this?

I agree that, if the universe is matter dominated, its expansion is decelerating, and that if it is dark energy dominated, its expansion is accelerating. That is a way of describing the math you give without using the word "force", which can be misleading.

The reason it can be misleading is that there is a key difference between the two kinds of densities you describe. The matter density $\Omega_m$ is only an average over large distance scales; it certainly does not describe the matter density in, say, the solar system, much less in the space occupied by a single atom. So viewing the deceleration in a matter dominated universe as a "force" that is compressing things is not correct if you try to apply it on small distance scales; it only works as a heuristic way of viewing the average deceleration of the expansion on large distance scales.

The dark energy density $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, OTOH, is, as far as we can tell, actually constant everywhere in the universe. So it actually is the same on the scale of the solar system, or even on the scale of a single atom, as it is on cosmological scales. So viewing the acceleration caused by dark energy as a tiny "force" even on the scale of the atom is correct, because the density of dark energy appearing in the math actually does describe the density on that scale.

So I don't entirely agree with your exposition, because you are lumping together two things--matter density and dark energy density--that actually behave very differently on small distance scales. Your exposition obscures that difference, which is crucial to the discussion we have been having. It is the reason I have been saying that expansion, in and of itself, does not cause any "force" at all on bound systems on small scales, whereas dark energy does cause a tiny "force" on those scales.