B Is space stretching or is new space being created?

[revnice]

Do we even know? My understanding of dark energy is that particles come into existence, exert and outward force, then vanish. My problem with that is how, of course, then how does dark energy know to push everything in the same direction? The pressure exerted would be in all directions, even if the space was moving so why isn't stuff pushed all over the sky?

Thanks - rev

 

[Dale]

Do we even know?

What does it mean? I don’t know the difference between space stretching or new space being created

 

[revnice]

I've heard expansion explained both ways. New space coming into existence or existing space stretching, no new space added.

 

[Dale]

Ok, so what is the difference? I mean, if the difference is just some alternate words that some people use, then pick the words that you prefer. If there is an actual measurable difference, what is it?

 

[PeroK]

I've heard expansion explained both ways. New space coming into existence or existing space stretching, no new space added.

First, the universe cannot be static. It must either be expanding or contracting. This is analagous to a ball being thrown up. It's either moving up or falling back down. It cannot hover at a constant height. The equations that govern spacetime (Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity) have no static solution. It doesn't require dark energy for this. Dark energy is responsible for the accelerated expansion, but is not needed for expansion itself. If there were no dark energy, the universe would still be expanding, but the expansion would be slowing down.

Second, space itself has no physicality, so that "stretching space" makes no sense to me. How could you identify a region of "stretched space" from "unstretched space"? It's all just the same vacuum. Likewise, thinking of the universe expansion as some sort space creation is also problematic.

What you can measure is the curvature of spacetime. That leaves you with a more agnostic, mathematical approach that says that if we measure time in a certain way (technically using comoving coordinates), then the measured distance between distant objects generally increases over time.

In general, modern physics demands that you learn to see things differently and develop a new way of understanding things, rather than trying to map everything back to some basic notions. This in a way exemplifies the difference between physics as an academic subject and physics as a popular science. Popular science attempts to explain everything in terms of things you already understand, so you don't have to expand your intellect. A textbook on Cosmology or General Relativity will try to get you to expand your way of thinking, so you don't have to rely on thinking about stretched rubber sheets to understand spacetime geometry.

 

[Ibix]

Another point: relativity models spacetime, not space. You can imagine slicing 4d spacetime into a "stack" of 3d slices, each one being "space at one instant", and with galaxies being further apart in each subsequent slice. But nothing is being stretched. Each instant of time is a different part of spacetime.

 

[PeroK]

Another point: relativity models spacetime, not space. You can imagine slicing 4d spacetime into a "stack" of 3d slices, each one being "space at one instant", and with galaxies being further apart in each subsequent slice. But nothing is being stretched. Each instant of time is a different part of spacetime.

This exemplfies the "new way of thinking". Being able to move on from our natural understanding of "3D space + time" and develop an understanding of "spacetime" as four-dimensional, where space and time and no longer separate.

People like to underplay the importance of mathematics (and popular science authors avoid it all costs), but it's only by developing mathematical thinking (in a broad sense) that you can understand modern physics.

 

[Demystifier]

I've heard expansion explained both ways. New space coming into existence or existing space stretching, no new space added.

Those are just analogies, which help to intuitively understand it in terms of everyday concepts, but neither is exactly true. Here is a third analogy, which I find quite appealing. The universe expansion is like changing the resolution of the computer screen. When you increase the resolution, the size of the screen and the number of pixels remain the same. But the screen appears bigger because the icons become smaller so you create space for putting more icons on the screen.

 

[DaveC426913]

My problem with that is how, of course, then how does dark energy know to push everything in the same direction? The pressure exerted would be in all directions, even if the space was moving

It would not be pushing in "the same direction"; it would be pushing in all directions uniformly, causing space to expand in all directions.

so why isn't stuff pushed all over the sky?

Because the expansion is uniformly distributed.

 

[revnice]

Dale:
>Ok, so what is the difference?
Beats me, but one thing seems pretty certain, when objects move away from each other, there's more distance and more space between them. Since we're not expanding into any kind of container or boundary, new space must be coming from somewhere or getting stretched.

For example, if two particles of dust are drifting away from each other in my living room, they're drifting apart in the same amount of space, nothing new is added because my living room is not expanding. But the universe is, and if anything gets bigger, it's my outrageous claim that something's been added, stretched, increased or changed. (Changed as in water to ice, the same amount of water has an increased volume when frozen).

Dave:
>Because the expansion is uniformly distributed.
Got it.

Demystifier:
>like changing the resolution of the computer screen
I like that one too, as long as I don't think about it too much.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dale:
>Ok, so what is the difference?
Beats me, but one thing seems pretty certain, when objects move away from each other, there's more distance and more space between them. Since we're not expanding into any kind of container or boundary, new space must be coming from somewhere or getting stretched.

Well "space" isn't a thing to be stretched.
Well space isn't a thing to be "stretched".

Well, space isn't a "thing" to be stretched.

Consider simply that objects are getting farther apart due to some unknown action.

That does not in-and-of-itself require anything to happen to the space between them.

 

[Dale]

Beats me

Then it doesn’t matter what the answer is.

it's my outrageous claim that something's been added, stretched, increased or changed

Hardly seems outrageous. Seems like the difference between two possible slogans for some advertising campaign

Frankly, I think you are getting caught up in words. There doesn’t appear to be any physics at issue, so just use the words you prefer.

 

[revnice]

Dave:
>That does not in-and-of-itself require anything to happen to the space between them.
Can't say I agree with you there. If everything is moving away from everything else, there must necessarily be more space between everything.

Dale:
Not knowing doesn't mean the answer doesn't matter, it matters because it's not known.

 

[weirdoguy]

Can't say I agree with you there. If everything is moving away from everything else, there must necessarily be more space between everything.

If you'd look at the math, then you'll see that there is no necessity for such thing. And if you are not able to "read" the math yourself, all there is left is to believe people that are. You have no basis to disagree.

 

[PeroK]

Dale:
>Ok, so what is the difference?
Beats me, but one thing seems pretty certain, when objects move away from each other, there's more distance and more space between them. Since we're not expanding into any kind of container or boundary, new space must be coming from somewhere or getting stretched.

This is exactly the constrained thinking I was talking about. You want to understand the cosmos in the same terms you understand your living room. You are not able to conceive of physics beyond what you already know. That's the opposite of learning. Learning is understanding something new or in a new way. Expanding your knowldege. What you are doing is essentially denying there can be anything beyond your current living-room experience. That the cosmos can't be like that because your living room is not like that.

We are here to help you expand your knowledge. Not to help you deny anything beyond what you already know.

 

[Dale]

Not knowing doesn't mean the answer doesn't matter, it matters because it's not known.

The issue isn’t that the answer is unknown. The issue is that the question is unphysical. You are asking “Is space stretching or is new space being created?” but you don’t have any physical meaning behind those words.

So the question that you are asking is just a choice of words and therefore the answer doesn’t matter. There is no physics content to the question, so the answer can be simply whatever words you prefer.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave:

That does not in-and-of-itself require anything to happen to the space between them.

Can't say I agree with you there. If everything is moving away from everything else, there must necessarily be more space between everything.

Answer me this:

I am currently moving away from my kitchen table, propelled by an unspecified action. Does it necessarily follow that space is being "created" or "stretched" between me and the table?

Yes we use the term "create space" in a figurative way, but surely you acknowledge it's just an abstract concept of distance between things.

 

[PeroK]

Answer me this:

I am currently moving away from my kitchen table, propelled by an unspecified action. Does it necessarily follow that space is being "created" or "stretched" between me and the table?

Yes we use the term "create space" in a figurative way, but surely you acknowledge it's just an abstract concept of distance between things.

There is a fundamental difference between the universe expansion and an expanding kitchen, say.

 

[revnice]

[Mentor’s note: although this post violates the forum rule against using AI as a source - and indeed is a good example of why we have that rule - we are leaving this post up as it has attracted replies]

This from Google:

Yes, space is being created as the universe expands. However, this expansion isn't about new matter appearing, but rather the fabric of space-time itself stretching. Dark energy, a mysterious force, seems to be causing this expansion and creating new space

 

[revnice]

Dave:
"created" or "stretched" between me and the table?
No, because your kitchen is not expanding, it's contained by the walls. If you had no walls and the kitchen expanded to double the size, you'd have double the space between everything.

 

[Ibix]

This from Google:

Yes, space is being created as the universe expands. However, this expansion isn't about new matter appearing, but rather the fabric of space-time itself stretching. Dark energy, a mysterious force, seems to be causing this expansion and creating new space

I assume that's an AI-generated summary. You can tell by the way it's clearly and confidently written and completely wrong. LLMs are hilariously bad at physics, I'm afraid.

 

[Dale]

This from Google:

OK, so you have Google’s AI preferred words. What are yours?

 

[revnice]

It could well be AI generated but I've heard celebrity physicists express expansion in precisely those terms. Namely, that the fabric of spacetime can ripple, stretch and vibrate. It's how we measured the merging of two neutron stars a few years ago with the gravitational wave detector. The AI answer seems to be saying both stretching and creating are going on but it's as uncertain as I am 'seems to be causing this expansion.'

 

[revnice]

Dale:
My words are essentially the same only phrased as a question. Which is true, creating or stretching? The AI answer doesn't answer that for me because it's vague, could be either, could be both.

 

[Nugatory]

Dale:
My words are essentially the same only phrased as a question. Which is true, creating or stretching?

Neither or both, which is why the AI answer is not so much wrong as it is misleading. The underlying problem is that space is not something that can be “stretched” or ”created” as these words are generally understood; we only see that terminology used in non-technical presentations that are trying to explain a mathematical concept to a non-mathematical audience. When the pros talk about cosmic expansion they use the language of differential geometry and the unhelpful notions of “fabric”, “stretch”, “creation” never come up.

 

[PeroK]

This from Google:

Yes, space is being created as the universe expands. However, this expansion isn't about new matter appearing, but rather the fabric of space-time itself stretching. Dark energy, a mysterious force, seems to be causing this expansion and creating new space

Rubbish!

 

[Nugatory]

but I've heard celebrity physicists express expansion in precisely those terms

They will use exactly those words because those are the best that natural language offers, but when they do they’re speaking metaphorically, not precisely. “Fabric of spacetime” and all the things that a fabric can do - ripple, stretch, vibrate - are metaphors, not precise descriptions.

There’s nothing wrong with these descriptions as long as you understand how little of the real thing you’re getting. But the difference between reading these descriptions and doing the work to understand the real thing is the difference between looking at a photograph of a delicious meal in a magazine and actually cooking, tasting, and eating the real thing.

 

[Ibix]

Namely, that the fabric of spacetime can ripple, stretch and vibrate.

And, as Nugatory has just pointed out, it's at best misleading. Spacetime isn't fabric, for starters (one of our German speakers suggested that Einstein once gave a lecture on the "stoff" of spacetime, which could mean "fabric" or "structure" of spacetime - and he meant the geometric structure and someone translated it wrong...). And although I see why people (even people who know better) fall back on calling gravitational waves "vibrations" they really aren't - nothing's changing if you take a spacetime view, and you're describing different parts of spacetime if you take a spatial view.

This really doesn't fit well into non-mathematical language. That's why popsci is misleading at best and LLM summaries of it are terrible.

Dark energy, a mysterious force, seems to be causing this expansion and creating new space

And that is flat wrong, no "maybe" or "I see why people say that" about that.

 

[Dale]

Which is true, creating or stretching?

And, as I asked you before, what is the measurable difference between creating space and stretching it?

If there is no measurable difference then it is a question of words not of physics.

You cannot get a physics answer until you have a physics question. And physics doesn’t have a means of determining what is true other than through measurements.

 

[revnice]

Well gentlemen (and I use the word loosely) it appears that I'll never have the slightest clue on this question because the explanation in layman's terms is completely wrong. My math is limited to 2 + 2 can equal 5 if the value of two is large enough.

Accept it from those who know? The last time I did that I lived with a lie for 65 years (as have all of you) but that's off topic. I'll call this one closed because it's dead-ended for me. Thanks for trying.

 

[Dale]

I'll never have the slightest clue on this question because the explanation in layman's terms is completely wrong

IMO, the problem is that you are not asking a physically meaningful question.

You have heard two different ways of describing the same thing and think that only one can be right. But physics doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t say only one description is right. In fact, a lot of modern physics is specifically based on the equivalence of different descriptions.

The only way that physics can choose between two descriptions is if they describe different measurements.

 

[Nugatory]

it appears that I'll never have the slightest clue on this question because the explanation in layman's terms is completely wrong

It’s not that dire. The physical fact is that two objects initially at rest relative to one another will drift apart unless there is some force that tends to hold them together. We don’t need to think in terms of space stretching or being created to understand this.

 

[PeroK]

Well gentlemen (and I use the word loosely) it appears that I'll never have the slightest clue on this question because the explanation in layman's terms is completely wrong. My math is limited to 2 + 2 can equal 5 if the value of two is large enough.

Accept it from those who know? The last time I did that I lived with a lie for 65 years (as have all of you) but that's off topic. I'll call this one closed because it's dead-ended for me. Thanks for trying.

Yours is a common dilemma. If you cannot or will not learn the required mathematics to study modern physics as an undergraduate student would, then you do have to accept explanations without fully understanding them.

The purpose of this site is to provide the next level of understanding, where possible, beyond popular science. If you are happy with what popular science tells you, then fine. But, it is a deadend. It doesn't allow you to think for yourself beyond what you have been told.

If you study physics as an academic subject, then you have the tools to explore the subject for yourself. Many people who read popular science are unhappy at this situation. But, the physics students puts in hundreds of hours of study to learn the subject. And, from the very start is required to solve problems for themselves and apply what they have learned. The popular science reader learns passively, and is never asked to roll their sleeves us and spend hours solving problems for themselves.

You can be as skeptical of this state of affairs as you like, but there it is.

One final point. The question of whether space is physically stretched is at best superficial. You're getting absorbed by a question that is ultimately of no relevance. There is a huge body of knowldege in the realms of GR and Cosmology. To me, that's what's sad. There is so much to learn in modern physics, but you've ended up foundering on a question that isn't even a question that physicsts are concerned with. You haven't even scratched the surface of what there is to learn about Cosmology, but have been stopped in your tracks by an irrelevant concern.

That we do not share your concerns is not our problem. That's your problem and prevents you from learning further.

 

[sophiecentaur]

you'd have double the space between everything.

. . . . . or even eight times?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Consider the analogy of a 1-dimensional universe shaped like a cone, where the distance along the axis from the point is time and space at a given time forms a circle around the cone. If you move the circle towards the wider end of the cone, is new length being created or is existing length stretching? I would not consider either option meaningful. If you draw straight lines on the cone starting from the point to representing the paths of galaxies, they get further apart, so the gaps between galaxies are increasing. However, if you draw two parallel lines on the cone and it is made of flat material, the lines remain parallel into the future, so objects (including galaxies) do not grow or shrink as a result of the expansion of the universe. (If the rate of expansion changes, which is probably true for the actual universe, it gets more complicated, but I think the analogy is still helpful).

 

[ShadowKraz]

No, when you increase the resolution, you, of necessity and by definition, increase the number of pixels. Not a good analogy anyway because the Universe, the screen in your analogy, is getting larger.

Those are just analogies, which help to intuitively understand it in terms of everyday concepts, but neither is exactly true. Here is a third analogy, which I find quite appealing. The universe expansion is like changing the resolution of the computer screen. When you increase the resolution, the size of the screen and the number of pixels remain the same.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

My understanding of dark energy is that particles come into existence, exert and outward force, then vanish.

That's your problem. There is no accepted explanation to a mystery, that's what makes it a mystery. People can't answer a query based on a premise that isn't even wrong.

 

[ShadowKraz]

On looking at the maths with a limited understanding of it (somehow calculus defeated me in my college days), I leapt, with the help of someone who does understand the maths, from the misleading balloon analogy to thinking that while space expands it doesn't expand into anything, that there is no boundary as we think of one based in everyday experience. It seems counterintuitive, but that's only because it does not relate to the ordinary everyday physics we experience directly. Letting go of that, it suddenly made sense. Nothing is 'created', space is bigger simply because it is bigger. Again, it seems counterintuitive but only because we are so rooted in the everyday mundane physics.

 

[phinds]

from the misleading balloon analogy

try this:

Learn Inflation Balloon Analogy

 

[ShadowKraz]

try this:

Learn Inflation Balloon Analogy

Been there, read that, moved beyond.
It does help folks mired in the balloon analogy, however, I'm not mired in it.
But thank you.