Space expansion in our perspective?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of space expansion and its implications on local scales, particularly in relation to the space within a room. Participants explore whether space is expanding at a measurable rate in small environments and how fundamental forces affect this expansion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if the space in their room is expanding and whether this expansion is measurable over time.
  • Another participant asserts that the walls of the room are not comoving and thus do not experience expansion, suggesting that local forces counteract any potential expansion.
  • Some participants illustrate the concept of expansion using analogies, such as galaxies represented as pennies on an expanding balloon, emphasizing that while distances between galaxies increase, the sizes of the galaxies themselves do not change.
  • There is a discussion about the concept of "inward peculiar velocity," with some participants explaining that this term describes the lack of relative motion in certain contexts.
  • One participant argues that there is no physical property of space called expansion, stating that expanding space is locally indistinguishable from nonexpanding space.
  • Another participant raises questions about the relationship between relative velocity and space expansion, suggesting that dark energy may play a role in the observed acceleration of galaxies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether space expansion is relevant at small scales, with some asserting that local forces prevent expansion while others argue that expansion is a matter of description rather than a physical phenomenon. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of using analogies to describe space expansion and the potential confusion arising from different coordinate systems. There are unresolved questions regarding the nature of forces acting on objects in relation to the concept of expansion.

powerplayer
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
So if space is expanding everywhere, does this mean the space in my room is expanding?

I'm assuming that its expanding so slow because of the small scale, but is there still a measurable amount of space expansion occurring in my room in any time interval?

If i were to wait a few billion years, would the space in my room be noticeably bigger or would i be expanding at the same rate and not notice a difference?

P.S. (I like explanations and details.)

Thx :)
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I'm assuming that its expanding so slow because of the small scale, but is there still a measurable amount of space expansion occurring in my room in any time interval?
No.
There is observational evidence that galaxy clusters are moving away from each other. They do so with a velocity proportional to their distance.
One can choose an expanding coordinate system such that all those comoving clusters have constant coordinate values. Since they all are in relative motion, their proper distance increases nonetheless. This increase of distance while keeping constant coordinate positions is dubbed "Space expansion". If you'd use a different coordinate system, you would call the same thing "velocity".
The walls of your room are not comoving. They are where they are, without relative motion. The distance between them is not increasing.
In the expanding space paradigm, you'd say they have a inward peculiar velocity that cancels the expansion. That's just a complicated way to say that they don't move.
 
Our planet will remain the same size. So will our galaxy. It is the space between galaxies that are expanding.
cheers, BT
 
In the expanding space paradigm, you'd say they have a inward peculiar velocity that cancels the expansion.

So space is expanding locally, but it is being canceled by inward peculiar velocity? What is inward peculiar velocity?
 
In expanding coordinates, one often says that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_distance" things are not moving, that the increasing distance is due to expansion of space. Peculiar velocity is what's left when you subtract that part. It's everything that does not behave exactly like a homogeneous expanding universe.
So things without relative motion (zero change in distance), like the walls of your room, would be described in a funny way: you subtract the supposed motion due to expansion from zero, and are left with a negative value. You call that an inward peculiar motion.

This kind of description is matematically well defined, and it's useful for modeling the universe. But it's a real nuisance if applied to things that are simply not expanding, it makes you think all kind of weird stuff is going on, when simply those things have no relative velocity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isnt the answer simply that atoms and objects are bound together by force?
 
This is how I illustrate it:

The expanding universe is an expanding balloon. Galaxies are shown as pennies glued all over the balloon.

As the balloon expands, the distance between the pennies increase, yet the pennies do not increase in size. Why? Because the forces holding the atoms of the penny together utterly dwarf the forces of the balloon pulling it apart.
 
Thanks for the great replies. :)

So the space in my room is expanding, however the 4 fundamental forces can resist the force of expansion.

Galaxies that are far enough apart don't have the required gravitational force to resist the expansion and therefore are accelerating apart.

Is this correct thinking?
 
Academic said:
Isnt the answer simply that atoms and objects are bound together by force?
DaveC426913 said:
the forces holding the atoms of the penny together utterly dwarf the forces of the balloon pulling it apart.
powerplayer said:
So the space in my room is expanding, however the 4 fundamental forces can resist the force of expansion.
No.

There is no physical property of empty space called expansion. Expanding space is locally exactly the same as nonexpanding space. The difference is in the description, not in space.
If the walls of your room don't have relative velocity (which I hope is true), they are not expanding. That's it. There's no force needed to prevent "expansion".

There may be air in your room, or dark matter, or dark energy. Those things gravitate and would attract or repulse the walls. To withstand this attraction or repulsion, the wall must exert a minuscule force. But it doesn't matter whether the universe is expanding or not.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
This is how I illustrate it:

The expanding universe is an expanding balloon. Galaxies are shown as pennies glued all over the balloon.

As the balloon expands, the distance between the pennies increase, yet the pennies do not increase in size. Why? Because the forces holding the atoms of the penny together utterly dwarf the forces of the balloon pulling it apart.

Space is not expanding uniformly.

Ich said:
There is no physical property of empty space called expansion. Expanding space is locally exactly the same as nonexpanding space. The difference is in the description, not in space.
If the walls of your room don't have relative velocity (which I hope is true), they are not expanding. That's it. There's no force needed to prevent "expansion".

There may be air in your room, or dark matter, or dark energy. Those things gravitate and would attract or repulse the walls. To withstand this attraction or repulsion, the wall must exert a minuscule force. But it doesn't matter whether the universe is expanding or not.

I simply can't make sense of what you are saying. Expanding space is locally exactly the same as nonexpanding space? How does that work?

Where does relative velocity enter the realm of space expansion? Our best guess is that dark energy has something to do with the possible negative energy density of the universe. The acceleration of galaxies away from us is interpreted as the effect of this negative energy density force overcoming the attractive force of gravity.
 
  • #11
benk99nenm312 said:
Space is not expanding uniformly.
I did not imply it was.

benk99nenm312 said:
I simply can't make sense of what you are saying. Expanding space is locally exactly the same as nonexpanding space? How does that work?
Space is not doing anything. The idea of the "fabric" of space and what it might be doing - as anything other than an analogy - is misbegotten.
 
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
I did not imply it was.

Space is not doing anything. The idea of the "fabric" of space and what it might be doing - as anything other than an analogy - is misbegotten.

Misbegotten? The idea of the fabric of spacetime is nothing more than an analogy? I'd love to see the proof from which you extract that.
 
  • #13
Expanding space is locally exactly the same as nonexpanding space? How does that work?
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in space that could betray "expansion". The concept of velocity does not apply to space. Objects can move, space can't.
Spacetime can be curved, and this curvature can be measured locally. Spacetime curvature is not expansion. Flat, empty space may be "expanding". It's just a matter of the coordinates you use.
Where does relative velocity enter the realm of space expansion?
Well, those galaxy clusters are moving away, aren't they? And their velocity is proportional to distance, at least in our vicinity (say, some GLy out).
You will encounter people that tell you "they are not actually moving, it's rather space expanding" or so. Ask them how they can tell expansion from motion. If there's a galaxy some 100 MLy away, what measurement establishes that this galaxy is not moving away?
They are actually moving away from us, and that motion is called expansion.
The acceleration of galaxies away from us is interpreted as the effect of this negative energy density force overcoming the attractive force of gravity.
Yes. I explicitly mentioned DE and its implications. But acceleration is not expansion. Expansion is velocity, the biggest part of it caused a long time ago by inflation.
 
  • #14
This link might help understand what Ich is saying or at least clarifies this confusion that has affected not only lay people but experts too (BTW I found the link in this forum)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2701
 
  • #15
benk99nenm312 said:
Misbegotten? The idea of the fabric of spacetime is nothing more than an analogy? I'd love to see the proof from which you extract that.

The onus is on you to show the idea has substance and is not merely an analogy.
 
  • #16
I believe we must all recognize we are discussing the interpretation of observation. I put no such onus on myself, I merely contend that we cannot simply dismiss such concepts as "the fabric of spacetime". The onus is in fact on you to disprove it, as you are the one who claims it misbegotten.

Yes, galaxies are receding from us. It is the idea that they are receding at an ever faster pace that requires further analysis. If I throw a baseball in space, it recedes away from me at a constant velocity. The galaxies, as of what I last heard, are accelerating away. The acceleration is why, it would seem to me, you cannot simply say that expanding space is the same as nonexpanding space. Maybe locally they are too similar to discern from one another, but the very idea of expansion implies more than a constant velocity of recession.

And this is where the possibility of DE comes in. Different interpretations are always out there.
 
  • #17
benk99nenm312 said:
I merely contend that we cannot simply dismiss such concepts as "the fabric of spacetime". The onus is in fact on you to disprove it, as you are the one who claims it misbegotten.
It can't be dismissed because it was never present. This 'model of space as a fabric' would first have to be more than merely an analogy.

So, my question then becomes "What do you mean when you talk about this 'fabric of space'? Can you please point me to some literature where this model is used in anything but an analagous way?"
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
It can't be dismissed because it was never present. This 'model of space as a fabric' would first have to be more than merely an analogy.

So, my question then becomes "What do you mean when you talk about this 'fabric of space'? Can you please point me to some literature where this model is used in anything but an analagous way?"

The way I've understood this is that the "fabric" is just merely the unification of space and time dimensions into Spacetime. To say this model was never presented... I'm confused. The literature is all around us...
 
  • #19
benk99nenm312 said:
The way I've understood this is that the "fabric" is just merely the unification of space and time dimensions into Spacetime. To say this model was never presented... I'm confused. The literature is all around us...

It is an analogy, to help us understand such things as curvature of space. But analogies break down; you cannot infer from an analogy back to real life.

Likewise, the expanding balloon analogy of the universe is an analogy; it helps us visualize how we can appear to be at the centre of our universe when in fact we are not in any such privileged position. But you cannot infer from the analogy such things as 'OK, if the balloon is a sphere, then it has a centre, right?' No. The analogy breaks down. The universe isn't really a balloon.

Likewise, there is no actual property of space that is expanding and carrying things with it. The only things that can move are matter and energy. We measure expansion of the universe by measuring the increasing distances between objects. The space between the objects has nothing to do with it.
 
  • #20
DaveC426913 said:
It is an analogy, to help us understand such things as curvature of space. But analogies break down; you cannot infer from an analogy back to real life.

Likewise, the expanding balloon analogy of the universe is an analogy; it helps us visualize how we can appear to be at the centre of our universe when in fact we are not in any such privileged position. But you cannot infer from the analogy such things as 'OK, if the balloon is a sphere, then it has a centre, right?' No. The analogy breaks down. The universe isn't really a balloon.

Likewise, there is no actual property of space that is expanding and carrying things with it. The only things that can move are matter and energy. We measure expansion of the universe by measuring the increasing distances between objects. The space between the objects has nothing to do with it.

Ok.. then by all means rewrite the books on Relativity. What do you propose then, instead of the dimensions of space and time? As humans we defined ourselves to be moving through dimensions. It's not an analogy of anything..

Your last sentence is quite a bold statement, the truth is that we don't necesarily know, that is just what most agree on. That's the concept of dark energy.
 
  • #21
benk99nenm312 said:
Ok.. then by all means rewrite the books on Relativity. What do you propose then, instead of the dimensions of space and time? As humans we defined ourselves to be moving through dimensions. It's not an analogy of anything..

When did we start talking about dimensions? We were talking about fabric. Stay awake.
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
It is an analogy, to help us understand such things as curvature of space. But analogies break down; you cannot infer from an analogy back to real life.

It is really not so easy. Universe exchanges energy with spacetime.
 
  • #23
I'm quite awake thanks, there's a fine line between discussion and argument. How would you define the fabric of spacetime?
 
  • #24
benk99nenm312 said:
I'm quite awake thanks, there's a fine line between discussion and argument.
Pulling a giant glaring straw man is certainly more argument than discussion; it came right out of left field. For a dozen posts we're talking about fabric, then you accuse me of rewriting laws of physics regarding dimensions. Reread your post 20.

benk99nenm312 said:
How would you define the fabric of spacetime?
?? You know how I define it; it is an analogy.

Just so you don't think I'm the only one, peruse https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=391606", to satisfy yourself that knowledgeable people do not take this fabric as more than a tool for explanation.

framedragger eloquently says "The existence of dimensions doesn't imply that they form an 'interwoven fabric'. That's a great way to describe spacetime without math, but it's not physical."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
The word Fabric is merely informally referring to a 'slice' of the 4th Dimension. This is how I understand it. The word fabric is where I believe you get your analogy. From what it sounded like, to me you seemed to be challenging the existence of Spacetime itself. That is why I asked you to define it. Can we stop being sarcastic to each other?
 
  • #26
benk99nenm312 said:
The word Fabric is merely informally referring to a 'slice' of the 4th Dimension. This is how I understand it.
Well, if you say so, but the reason it came up at all was because properties were being attributed to this fabric analogy as if it was real and could affect reality.

benk99nenm312 said:
Can we stop being sarcastic to each other?
Hey. Two words was my contribution. And I mitigated it with an emoticon. :biggrin:
 
  • #27
Yes. I explicitly mentioned DE and its implications. But acceleration is not expansion. Expansion is velocity, the biggest part of it caused a long time ago by inflation.

Why are galaxies accelerating then? Is it because of DE and DM?

There may be air in your room, or dark matter, or dark energy. Those things gravitate and would attract or repulse the walls. To withstand this attraction or repulsion, the wall must exert a minuscule force. But it doesn't matter whether the universe is expanding or not.

So space expansion is uniform and has nothing to do with DE and DM?

Space expansion came from the observation that light was being "shifted" to different wavelengths, correct?

I am trying to understand why there is a difference between space expansion in the distances between galaxies and the distances between the walls in my room.

Thx :)
 
  • #28
Why are galaxies accelerating then? Is it because of DE and DM?
Acceleration is equivalent to something repulsive, and we call that something Dark Energy.
So space expansion is uniform and has nothing to do with DE and DM?
Do you know the difference between acceleration and velocity? It's exactly the same with acclerated expansion and expansion.
I am trying to understand why there is a difference between space expansion in the distances between galaxies and the distances between the walls in my room.
The galaxies are moving away since the big bang kick-off. Your walls are not moving away, because nobody kicked them.
 
  • #29
Ich said:
Do you know the difference between acceleration and velocity? It's exactly the same with acclerated expansion and expansion.

I don't fully understand this answer.

So DE and DM cause accelerated space expansion, and space expansion is just actually the velocity of the galaxies from the big bang?
 
  • #30
So DE and DM cause accelerated space expansion, and space expansion is just actually the velocity of the galaxies from the big bang?
DM causes deceleration. DE accelerates. Otherwise, yes.
The concepts of distance and velocity are quite tricky at really large scales, but that's exactly how it works when you look at smaller scales (some billion lightyears), where both concepts can be well defined. There, you have galaxies moving (their velocity roughly proportional to distance), this motion being changed (accelerated or decelerated) by their own gravity and the gravity of DM and DE.
Now add the assumption that this happens everywhere in the universe, and you get cosmology.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How Does the Balloon Analogy Explain the Expansion of the Universe?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad On Hubble's constant, the expansion of the Universe and vacuum energy
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Is the Expansion of Space/Time a Result of Object Motion or Framework Growth?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Expansion, Gravity and the Electric Force
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Expansion of Space: Questions on How the Universe Works
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about the cosmological constant
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Why space expansion is limited to scales larger than galaxy clusters?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Undergrad Expansion of space & expansion of matter within space
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Graduate Space expansion on smaller scales
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Accelerated Expansion of Space question
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K