New Teacher Seeks Help on Universe Expansion & Space

[PatrickPowers]

Einstein and Newton explained gravity; the former with more accuracy. However, I believe we really don't know what is gravity. We have read how mass bends the space, but we don't know how it happens. Sometimes it sounds like a fairy tale because it is hard to imagine such a thing.

I have read from reliable sources that General Relativity assumes inertia and derives gravity. At seems to be hard to say how this is derived, though.

 

[Tanelorn]

My present understanding is that all macro forces and effects including gravity are as a result of the interactions of Bosons with Fermions and their residuals. The bending of space is simply an illusion because space itself has no objective existence. The same applies to spacetime and time.

 

[McCartney]

My present understanding is that all macro forces and effects including gravity are as a result of the interactions of Bosons with Fermions and their residuals. The bending of space is simply an illusion because space itself has no objective existence. The same applies to spacetime and time.

One needs more than one area in space with mass to have gravity.

Gravity weakens with increased distance among objects. Do bosons and fermions behave differently when they are in close proximity to mass.

Is the boson and fermion network (or concentration) in the universe a constant?

 

[Tanelorn]

McCartney please take a look at this page. It details the Fermions (matter) and Bosons (force carriers). This should help answer your questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

 

[mgervasoni]

They say it's hard to imagine infinite space.. It could be a 4th dimension. BUT, if you did walk all the way to the edge of space and took one more step, you'd be right back where you started. It's like if someone couldn't grasp the concept of a 3 dimensional sphere. You'd put him on Earth and he'd walk and walk and sooner or later he'd get right back where he started, bewildered. Thus may be our ability to conceive how we could get to the edge of space, and be right back where we were.

 

[mgervasoni]

The protons and electrons acting like Solar Systems in the Bohr's atom model is what lead to all that science fiction in the 30's and after: universes within universes. Our modern concept of how atoms are and operate is very different from what you learned in high school science.

 

[phinds]

They say it's hard to imagine infinite space.. It could be a 4th dimension. BUT, if you did walk all the way to the edge of space and took one more step, you'd be right back where you started. It's like if someone couldn't grasp the concept of a 3 dimensional sphere. You'd put him on Earth and he'd walk and walk and sooner or later he'd get right back where he started, bewildered. Thus may be our ability to conceive how we could get to the edge of space, and be right back where we were.

I understand what you are saying but the "edge of space" is a very poor concept and should be avoided, since there isn't one.

 

[Imax]

There’s no need for an edge if the universe is finite or compact. It’s just like on Earth. You can travel in a straight line on Earth and you can come back to where you started from. The difference is that on Earth you’re limited to a 2D surface, but the Universe is 3D.

 

[Bread18]

There’s no need for an edge if the universe is finite or compact. It’s just like on Earth. You can travel in a straight line on Earth and you can come back to where you started from. The difference is that on Earth you’re limited to a 2D surface, but the Universe is 3D.

That would happen if we lived in a closed universe and, as far as I know, there isn't any evidence for that.

 

[mgervasoni]

I understand what you are saying but the "edge of space" is a very poor concept and should be avoided, since there isn't one.

Totally right Phinds, that was my point but perhaps poorly described. Just like there is no edge on earth, so is space/the universe... And again some people did think the Earth was flat/finite at one time which we just shake our heads at now.

And that's a very thought provoking statement that the Earth is 3D with a 2D surface, perhaps the universe is 4D with a 3D "surface"? (That's some string theory and other theories right?) Anyway, no need to speculate but it's a extremely interesting topic, and it's always good for our minds to think. :)

 

[Imax]

That would happen if we lived in a closed universe and, as far as I know, there isn't any evidence for that.

I’m trying to point out that there is no need for an edge, regardless of whether the Universe is finite or infinite. And, I agree with you. There is very little observable data indicating that it’s finite. Some models using Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation suggest that it may be finite, but I don’t think these are very conclusive. But, to quote Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang):

“According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly.”

How can you have rapid expansion in size if the Universe is infinite?

 

[Imax]

And that's a very thought provoking statement that the Earth is 3D with a 2D surface, perhaps the universe is 4D with a 3D "surface

It’s hard to imagine what a 3D Universe would look like embedded in 4D space.

 

[phinds]

.”

How can you have rapid expansion in size if the Universe is infinite?

Math involving infinity is NOT like normal math. If you double infinity what you get is EXACTLY the infinity that you started with.

 

[Drakkith]

How can you have rapid expansion in size if the Universe is infinite?

The SIZE of the universe may or may not have increased. The distance between all objects in the universe did increase as a result of expansion. Is that easier to visualize? With an infinite universe, doubling the distance between all objects is exactly the same as in a finite universe.

 

[Imax]

The SIZE of the universe may or may not have increased. The distance between all objects in the universe did increase as a result of expansion.

The Big Bang theory postulates that the size of the Universe is increasing and it possibly starting from some kind of point singularity. The question is Space. Was Space finite or infinite near the time of the Big Bang event? Did the Universe start out in an infinite space with its entire mass confined in a very small volume, or did the big bang event itself create space?

I can’t help but think that the BB singularity had some properties similar to Black Holes, and Black Holes can bend space-time. It’s possible that space was compact near the Big Bang, with all the mass/energy of the Universe confined to a point singularity.

 

[Drakkith]

The Big Bang theory postulates that the size of the Universe is increasing and it possibly starting from some kind of point singularity. The question is Space. Was Space finite or infinite near the time of the Big Bang event? Did the Universe start out in an infinite space with its entire mass confined in a very small volume, or did the big bang event itself create space?

To my knowledge the universe contains everything, including spacetime. Whether the size of the universe if finite or infinite is unknown.

I can’t help but think that the BB singularity had some properties similar to Black Holes, and Black Holes can bend space-time. It’s possible that space was compact near the Big Bang, with all the mass/energy of the Universe confined to a point singularity.

The Earth bends spacetime. So does my Dr. Pepper can sitting here on the desk next to me. A black hole only bends spacetime stronger than either of the former do. Also, as I have seen here on PF, supposedly most cosmologists don't believe an actual physical singularity existed, but that it is simply a consequence of having an incomplete theory.

 

[phinds]

The Big Bang theory postulates that the size of the Universe is increasing and it possibly starting from some kind of point singularity.

Absolutely not correct. There was NO "point" at which the BB happened, it happened everywhere. If there had been a point, the U would not exhibit the isotopy and homogeneity that are now observed.

 

[petm1]

I understand what you are saying but the "edge of space" is a very poor concept and should be avoided, since there isn't one.

Take a picture of any amount of time your camera will let you. We can make the illusion of photons going the opposite direction in time by making a negative. In this negative view the objects appear as holes and space the source of photons. Both pictures are of edges in my universe the edge is between inner space-time and outer space-time. Hope this helps.

 

[Tanelorn]

Chalnoth, what are you thoughts on the following?

"If you were traveling at the speed of light and turned a flashlight on, what would happen to the light?
Relative to you, the light from your flashlight would still be moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s.
To allow this to happen, your perception of time slows down the faster you move and you gain more mass (E=mc^2)."


I believe the above is correct. So my question is, at the beginning of the BB when all particles were moving very fast, would time effects like the above example effect our estimates for the rate of inflation, or even our estimates for the age of the universe since particles were moving very fast for quite a while? I am very uncertain of which relativitic frames of reference apply in this case.


Thanks!

 

[phinds]

Take a picture of any amount of time your camera will let you. We can make the illusion of photons going the opposite direction in time by making a negative. In this negative view the objects appear as holes and space the source of photons. Both pictures are of edges in my universe the edge is between inner space-time and outer space-time. Hope this helps.

I do not wish to be rude, but this is just nonsense and has nothing to do with physics.

 

[phinds]

Chalnoth,

If you were traveling at the speed of light and turned a flashlight on, what would happen to the light?
Relative to you, the light from your flashlight would still be moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s.

Yep, that's right

To allow this to happen, your perception of time slows down the faster you move and you gain more mass (E=mc^2).

No, as you move faster, YOUR perception of time doesn't change at all, but an external observer sees your time as going slower [and you see theirs as going slower]

I believe the above is correct. So my question is, at the beginning of the BB when all particles were moving very fast, would time effects like the above example effect our estimates for the rate of inflation, or even our estimates for the age of the universe since particles were moving very fast for quite a while?

If it did, do you seriously believe that every physicist who has studied the early universe was to stupid that they overlooked it?

 

[Tanelorn]

phnds, no need to be abrasive, I am not suggesting anyone overlooked anything or was being stupid!
Anyway I was hoping Chalnoth could give me his thoughts on this. thanks.

 

[phinds]

phnds, no need to be abrasive, I am not suggesting anyone overlooked anything or was being stupid!
Anyway I was hoping Chalnoth could give me his thoughts on this. thanks.

You're right ... I was snippy and I apologize. I'm always taken aback when someone comes up with an idea that just could not possibly have been overlooked and then rather than say something like "it seems to me that ... so why isn't that the case", they ask it as though they think no one has ever thought of it before.

 

[Tanelorn]

I mostly expect to be completely wrong or missing a fundermental understanding when I ask these kind of questions, but at least I am still asking, which I think is a good thing.

 

[phinds]

I mostly expect to be completely wrong or missing a fundermental understanding when I ask these kind of questions, but at least I am still asking, which I think is a good thing.

I couldn't agree more that asking is a good thing, I was just put off by the particular way you asked, and again I apologize for being snippy.

 

[Drakkith]

"If you were traveling at the speed of light and turned a flashlight on, what would happen to the light?
Relative to you, the light from your flashlight would still be moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s.
To allow this to happen, your perception of time slows down the faster you move and you gain more mass (E=mc^2)."

You cannot travel at the speed of light. Traveling arbitrarily close to c your perception of time would be vastly slower compared to "stationary" observers and distances would appear to you to be length contracted. However, you do not gain mass, you gain energy.

I believe the above is correct. So my question is, at the beginning of the BB when all particles were moving very fast, would time effects like the above example effect our estimates for the rate of inflation, or even our estimates for the age of the universe since particles were moving very fast for quite a while? I am very uncertain of which relativitic frames of reference apply in this case.Thanks!

Are you referring to inflation? In that case I am unsure of the effects that expansion of space has with regards to relativity. Does time dilation apply between areas that are moving apart at .5c thanks to expansion or inflation?

 

[Imax]

If space was infinite before the Big Bang event and the entire mass/energy of the Universe was confined to a small volume and that volume expanded something like an explosion at the BB event, then it could be difficult to postulate a homogeneous and isotropic Universe. The outer regions of the Universe could see a very lower mass/energy density in the direction of expansion, as compared to a higher mass/energy density in the opposite direction. Given this scenario, it’s possible that the Universe wouldn’t be homogeneous and isotropic.

Seems to me that one way of having a homogeneous and isotropic Universe is if space is finite (i.e. compact).

 

[phinds]

If space was infinite before the Big Bang event and the entire mass/energy of the Universe was confined to a small volume

You can't have it both ways. Either space was infinite OR it was confined to a small volume.

If the U was infinite at its inception, that does NOT mean that it could not have expanded exactly as it did.

 

[Drakkith]

If space was infinite before the Big Bang event and the entire mass/energy of the Universe was confined to a small volume and that volume expanded something like an explosion at the BB event, then it could be difficult to postulate a homogeneous and isotropic Universe. The outer regions of the Universe could see a very lower mass/energy density in the direction of expansion, as compared to a higher mass/energy density in the opposite direction. Given this scenario, it’s possible that the Universe wouldn’t be homogeneous and isotropic.

Seems to me that one way of having a homogeneous and isotropic Universe is if space is finite (i.e. compact).

The problem is that to the best of our knowledge the big bang was NOT an explosion like we normally think of. Whatever the size of the universe, infinite or finite, whatever, the big bang was the starting point. This includes spacetime.

 

[Tanelorn]

In my earlier unanswered question I was asking if special relativity type effects have to be included in estimates for either the rate of inflation or even the age of the universe?

So I had a look around to see if photons which begin their journey in a higher density medium, with lower gravitational potential to a modern day lower density medium with higher gravitational potential, might undergo a red shift, and came up with the following:



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology#Gravitational_red_shift

Gravitational red shift
The local conservation of energy, and the consequential variation in rest mass, demand that gravitational mass is treated under the de Broglie wave theory. Mass is defined by the DeBroglie frequency of that particle. The red shift caused by the curvature of space-time, a time dilation expressed by the metric component, is suffered not only by the photon but also by the atom with which it interacts and is thus undetectable. The red shift that is detectable is caused by the increase in rest mass that fundamental particles undergo when raised to the higher level. Gravitational red shift in this theory is interpreted not as a loss of gravitational potential energy by the photon but as a gain of gravitational potential energy by the apparatus measuring it. The red shift predicted is hence equal to the difference in Newtonian potential and thus identical with that of GR as confirmed in the Pound-Rebka experiment.


Firstly, I hope this is acceptable science and that it is ok to post this, I am finding that posting genuine science questions here is getting somewhat risky of terse replies.

So does this effect, if real, make any contribution to CMBR red shift and thus estimates for the age of the universe? Oh - and I am sure that if it does, that it has already been included.




I also saw at the end of the wikipedia article a section on Dark Matter which looked interesting. Is this view accepted science?

 

[Tanelorn]

This page explains the concept of Gravitational Red Shift very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

At the bottom there is also a discussion on gravitational time dilation:


Gravitational redshift versus gravitational time dilation

When using special relativity's relativistic Doppler relationships to calculate the change in energy and frequency (assuming no complicating route-dependent effects such as those caused by the frame-dragging of rotating black holes), then the Gravitational redshift and blueshift frequency ratios are the inverse of each other, suggesting that the "seen" frequency-change corresponds to the actual difference in underlying clockrate. Route-dependence due to frame-dragging may come into play, which would invalidate this idea and complicate the process of determining globally agreed differences in underlying clock rate.

While gravitational redshift refers to what is seen, gravitational time dilation refers to what is deduced to be "really" happening once observational effects are taken into account.



So is there anyone here who can speak to the level of contribution of gravitation red shift to the CMBR redshift and also the possible effect of gravitational time dilation on the estimated age of the Universe?

 

[Imax]

You can't have it both ways. Either space was infinite OR it was confined to a small volume.

It'is two different things. If you postulate that space is flat Euclidean and it can expand to infinity in all directions, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that the entire mass/energy of the U could occupy a finite volume near the Big Band event. What I’m trying to point out is that the BB event is unlikely to be something like an explosion, something you could expect from detonating dynamite. If this was the scenario, then it could be difficult to have a model of the U that was homogeneous and isotropic.

We are embedded within the BB event. A compact space model of the Universe can allow for closed space-like and closed light-like geodesics. A compact space model can explain a U that is homogeneous and isotropic.

And to all PF participates, Merry Christmas and Happy New year!

 

[Drakkith]

It'is two different things. If you postulate that space is flat Euclidean and it can expand to infinity in all directions, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that the entire mass/energy of the U could occupy a finite volume near the Big Band event.

If I'm not mistaken, it isn't that it can expand to infinity, it's that it IS infinite. Or might be.

 

[phinds]

... it doesn’t preclude the possibility that the entire mass/energy of the U could occupy a finite volume near the Big Band event.

I contend that if it starts off not infiite it ends up not infinite. Do you disagree? How do you get from finite to infinite in a finite amount of time? Seems like a good trick to me

 

[phinds]

If I'm not mistaken, it isn't that it can expand to infinity, it's that it IS infinite. Or might be.

well, my point is more that it EITHER is or it isn't, and you can't have both. If it isn't at the start, then it isn't now and if it is now then it was at the start.

 

[Drakkith]

well, my point is more that it EITHER is or it isn't, and you can't have both. If it isn't at the start, then it isn't now and if it is now then it was at the start.

Agreed.

 

[Imax]

I contend that if it starts off not infinite it ends up not infinite. Do you disagree?

No. Absent some kind of bizarre event, something like quantum symmetry breaking, then a U that was finite near the BB should be finite now. If space was infinite then, it should be infinite now.

My inclination is a U with a compact space (i.e. finite).