Is the Expansion of the Universe Driven by Mass?

[wolram]

Has space time any mass?

If space can expand, then it suggests
that (some thing) is feeding the expansion, if so then that (thing)
may be the missing mass .

 

[MeJennifer]

Has space time any mass?

In general relativity space-time is not some entity that exists by itself, but instead it is the combined gravitational field of all particles.
General relativity does not operate on the background called space-time.

With regards to "expansion", I am not a big fan of this term, in fact I think it is a misnomer.

So perhaps people who find themselves more qualified could comment on "expansion".

 

[|Orion's Thought|]

So if you could ever escape the gravity of all the particles in the universe, you would be "outside" the universe?

 

[Wallace]

Has space time any mass?

The short (and long) answer is no.

If space can expand, then it suggests
that (some thing) is feeding the expansion, if so then that (thing)
may be the missing mass .

Space can be said to expand since the distance between two observers who are at rest in their local inertial frame increases. The thing that drives this expansion however is simply the energy in the universe. The expansion of space is an effect rather than a cause. The reason that the universe expands is that is did so in the past. The nature of the energy in the universe (the matter, dark energy if it exists, radiation etc) governs the acceleration of the universe, but the only reason the universe is expanding is because it did so in the past. Inflation (or whatever someone comes up with that is a better theory) is the ultimate reason the universe is expanding.

So no, there is nothing 'feeding' the expansion that is currently unaccounted for. Space-time dosn't have mass but it responds to the presence of mass by curving etc. The way in which it does this is accounted for in our current standard theory.

 

[vld]

According to Zeldovitch and Novikov (in their book "The Structure and Evolution of the Universe"), the net mass of the universe is zero. However, if mass is equivalent to energy then, according to the current theories, locally vacuum contains enormous amounts of energy (hence - mass?)

 

[wolram]

The short (and long) answer is no.



Space can be said to expand since the distance between two observers who are at rest in their local inertial frame increases. The thing that drives this expansion however is simply the energy in the universe. The expansion of space is an effect rather than a cause. The reason that the universe expands is that is did so in the past. The nature of the energy in the universe (the matter, dark energy if it exists, radiation etc) governs the acceleration of the universe, but the only reason the universe is expanding is because it did so in the past. Inflation (or whatever someone comes up with that is a better theory) is the ultimate reason the universe is expanding.

So no, there is nothing 'feeding' the expansion that is currently unaccounted for. Space-time dosn't have mass but it responds to the presence of mass by curving etc. The way in which it does this is accounted for in our current standard theory.

If expansion is driven by the energy in the universe, then surly as space
grows then the energy will be dilluted, even now it should be getting less
per volume, if so then maybe the properties of space change over long periods, unless that is there is some limitless energy source.

 

[marcus]

Space can be said to expand since the distance between two observers who are at rest in their local inertial frame increases...

Normally I find myself understanding and agreeing even down to level of nuance, with what you say in your posts. But I have what may be a slightly different take on the meaning of this popularized phrase.

For me the clearest way to picture it is that what increases is the distance between two observers who are each at rest with respect to the Hubble flow

Is there some reason I should not be thinking this way (is it circular, or misleading in some respect?)
Should I substitute for my idea the idea of two observes each at rest in local inertial frame?
==================

In any case "space expands" is a phrase used to commicate something to lay readers. and it is a concise phrase to use in casual conversation.

and I think what it means is that distances between stationary things increase.
(stationary meaning "at rest" in a sense defined various possible ways, with respect to CMB, or hubbleflow, or inertial frame, or whatever)

what seems to infuriate people is that as children they got used to the idea that the distance between two stationary things should not increase---but alas it seems in the real world it typically does ---so one has to get over the enraging fact of it being different from the childhood experience of nearby things.
But after all there is no logical or philosophical reason why the distance shouldn't change! We have no right to expect it to stay always the same.
Still people kvetch and kvetch about this.

 

[marcus]

In general relativity space-time is not some entity that exists by itself, but instead it is the combined gravitational field of all particles.
General relativity does not operate on the background called space-time.

With regards to "expansion", I am not a big fan of this term, in fact I think it is a misnomer.

So perhaps people who find themselves more qualified could comment on "expansion".

This sounds very reasonable to me!

I am not a big fan of the phrase "space expands" either.
It is a popularization and it gets across the idea, but it is a bit crude and could be called misleading, or a "misnomer" as you say.

the philosophical bedrock, I think, is simply that largescale distances increase.

largescale distance does not behave like smallscale distance that is locked onto a crystal or piece of metal or rock, or the surface of the earth.
those distances are anchored to molecular and atomic forces in material.
so a ruler, which is crystaline metal, stays the same length.

but largescale distance is not anchored to a crystal or a rock or a dynamical system of bound planets or whatever. it is over vast reaches of space between unbound entitites. It can and does increase.

And the change in distance can affect the wavelengths of light.

If one could say all that in two words, in casual conversation, then one wouldn't have to resort to a misleading summary like "space expands".

it's all in the distance function (which, as you say, is the gravitational field itself: gravity = geometry)

 

[marcus]

Has space time any mass?

If space can expand, then it suggests
...

Wolram, space is not a substance.
The fact that people say "space expands" suggests to people that it is a substance or behaves like a material, which is probably wrong. I think it is wrong.

I believe Aristotle pointed this out. I think he said that space was not a material, but rather it was the relationships between things. Leibniz agreed with Aristotle nearly 2000 years later. Its how thinking people normally thought.

In Aristotle's view, which has been the standard one thru most of European history, space is the sum total of all the geometrical relations between things

basically it's the catalog of all the angles and distances and this-between-that and what is beside what, or inside, or outside.

and, interestingly enough, EINSTEIN CONFIRMED THIS OLD TRADITIONAL IDEA because he replaced space by the idea of a distance function, i.e. a METRIC, which is basically just what I said.

a metric is a catalog of all the geometrical information about relations between things.

Einstein said that points of spacetime don't have reality. what has reality is the relationships between events summarized by the metric---and the METRIC IS THE GRAVIATIONAL FIELD. that really is all the gravitational field turns out to be in Gen Rel. it turns out to be the metric---the distance function between things that defines geometry.

knowing you, I guess you will scream and find that completely impossible to swallow. there is no space. there is only relationships.

but you and I and everybody is stuck by one simple fact: nobody has a theory that WORKS better than Gen Rel to predict gravity stuff. And in that theory there is no space
there is only the metric distance relationships
and in Gen Rel solutions----specific metrics that come out as solutions of the equations DISTANCES CHANGE typically rather than staying the same.

so here, at PF, half the time half the people are screaming----that is what many of the posts amount to. people don't seem able to accept that distances change. but they are stuck with there being only one model of gravity that works

and big bang (or more recently big bounce) cosmology is one of the inescapable consequences of this model of gravity that works

(works with exquisite precision, tested over and over again!)

this is our situation, Wolram, are you going to be one of the screamers?
or will you try to live with the idea that distances between stationary things can increase?

 

[Wallace]

If expansion is driven by the energy in the universe, then surly as space
grows then the energy will be dilluted, even now it should be getting less
per volume, if so then maybe the properties of space change over long periods, unless that is there is some limitless energy source.

Spot on! This is exactly what happens. The density of the universe was much higher in the past and will be lower in the future. As the universe expands the energy within it is indeed diluted. The 'properties' of space-time are determined by the energy residing in it, so indeed the properties of space-time change as the universe expands and the energy within it decreases in density.

Normally I find myself understanding and agreeing even down to level of nuance, with what you say in your posts. But I have what may be a slightly different take on the meaning of this popularized phrase.

For me the clearest way to picture it is that what increases is the distance between two observers who are each at rest with respect to the Hubble flow

Is there some reason I should not be thinking this way (is it circular, or misleading in some respect?)
Should I substitute for my idea the idea of two observes each at rest in local inertial frame?

I don't disagree with you here at all, in fact what could 'an observer at rest in local inertial frame' be other than an observer at rest with respect to the Hubble flow? My statement was just a slightly more fancy way of saying the same thing, though perhaps I didn't explain it well enough.

 

[wolram]

Marcus, knowing you, I guess you will scream and find that completely impossible to swallow. there is no space. there is only relationships.


Maybe not scream, but the idea that we live in a (metric) is to artificial an existence, unless some (thing )controls that metric.

 

[Wallace]

Marcus, I had another read of what I wrote and I think I missed an important point. What I meant to/should of said was "the distance between two observers who are at rest with respect to the cosmic fluid in their local inertial frame increases". This now sounds even more like your statement, so I think we agree, once I explained myself properly!

Wolram I don't understand what your last post was trying to say at all? Could you clarify?

 

[marcus]

Wallace, watch out for Wolram. He has a British sense of humor that one doesn't always get. maybe you are British yourself and understand. keen independent mind. asks basic original somewhat strangesounding questions

I never really know what he's driving at but always has some interesting aspect.

Wallace everytime I reflect on it I am very glad you are showing up and posting at this cosmology board. It makes it a totally better place to be.

 

[wolram]

Wolram I don't understand what your last post was trying to say at all? Could you clarify?

Sorry Wallace, i try to understand things in my own way, Marcus is
generous, While it seems easy for some to accept that we live in a
universe governed by dark matter, dark energy and this thing called
space time (a thing that has only a mathmatical description) afaik, i
find it most difficult, may be when maths can describe smell or color
i might find it easier.

 

[Wallace]

I think people overestimate how happy 'mainstream' cosmologists are with living in a universe full of the entities we label dark matter and dark energy. Most cosmologist are in fact very uncomfortable with this, but that's what the evidence points to. The reason so much effort goes into say, direct dark matter detection, or SN or other surveys to probe dark energy is the very desire to either find out what they are or prove they aren't there!

Many things in science were postulated to exist without being directly observed. Some of these were subsequently confirmed to exist, some were not.

The other thing you mention, that space-time just a mathematical description, is also a more common cause for concern than you might think. On the other hand, what is physics if not a mathematical model for the universe? Maths can describe both smell and colour, just as it describes space-time. If you want to go beyond a mathematical description then physics may not be the place to look!

 

[wolram]

Thankyou Wallace, like Marcus you are very kind and helpfull.

 

[mwsund]

Wolram, space is not a substance.
The fact that people say "space expands" suggests to people that it is a substance or behaves like a material, which is probably wrong. I think it is wrong.
...

EINSTEIN CONFIRMED THIS OLD TRADITIONAL IDEA because he replaced space by the idea of a distance function, i.e. a METRIC, which is basically just what I said.

a metric is a catalog of all the geometrical information about relations between things.

Einstein said that points of spacetime don't have reality. what has reality is the relationships between events summarized by the metric---and the METRIC IS THE GRAVIATIONAL FIELD. that really is all the gravitational field turns out to be in Gen Rel. it turns out to be the metric---the distance function between things that defines geometry.

Please excuse this interruption to a really informative exchange, but I have a much more basic question. If the observed increase in distance is a change in a metric, would it be consistent to argue that the change could be caused by a distortion (as mass causes a distortion, but with a possibly different cause and a far less localized effect) so that the path that light follows gets longer? That is, would a model that does not involve the translation of objects, but just a longer path for light meet the requirements? Does that make sense?

 

[Wallace]

There is probably an easier way of answering your question in the negative, but here is my answer:

The change in the metric with time (specifically the scale factor a(t) ) has an important role in the structure formation of the universe. So with a different expansion history described by a different function for a(t) the clustering of material in the universe is different. This would not be the case if the expansion only affected light.

 

[mwsund]

Wallace,
Thank you for the reply. I actually think I understand your point (although I do not have any sense for the functional characteristics of a(t)). Is there more you can say about a(t) or references that can help a non-cosmologist understand?

 

[Wallace]

Try http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0510791" paper. It is a review of some different dark energy models. If the text and maths is too dry and academic have a look at the figures. They show the a(t) evolution for a variety of DE models. Note this paper actually uses R(t) instead of a but they are essentially the same thing.

 

[mwsund]

Wallace,
After a brief look the paper seems reasonably approachable. I'm looking forward to reading it more carefully.

I continue to be impressed with the patience many of the members of this forum have with naive outsiders struggling to get a grasp on this fascinating but compex field. Thanks.

 

[marcus]

Wallace,
Thank you for the reply. I actually think I understand your point (although I do not have any sense for the functional characteristics of a(t)). Is there more you can say about a(t) or references that can help a non-cosmologist understand?

I think I may have another source that gives a picture of R(t)

It might be here---Caltech has a collection of HTML papers called "Level 5"
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/author_index.html

if you look down the list you see "Lineweaver: Inflation and the CMB"
(this is also available in PDF on arxiv, but let's see what we get immediately in HTML)

Yes, here it is:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/frames.html

this article has a figure which presents a beautiful picture of R(t) or a(t), as Wallace says they are essentially just two notations for the same thing, the universe "scale factor"

It is figure 14
the way to get it is click on section 7.7 in the left hand margin--it is a "frames" HTML presentation

I wish I could come up with a link that would directly give that figure 14.
I'd almost like a poster of it.

HERE WE GO!
This is the isolated JPG file for Lineweaver's figure he calls "size and destiny of the universe"

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Figures/figure14.jpg

IF you want to see it in the context in his "Inflation and the CMB" article, here is section 7.7 that has the figure in it
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_7.html

here is the TOC for that article
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver_contents.html

here is the abstract, which has a link to a more legible PDF copy
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305179

Hopefully that one JPG file picture will be comparable to the figures in the article Wallace mentioned. We can compare and see if there are differences. Wallace's article is more recent (2005)
http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/0510791

 

[simonbaumber]

Expantion is a very complex theory which has many unexplaind factors, therefore i am not willing to openly accept this theory even though i am usually open to many ideas. Instead i preffer to think of the universe as infininte and that there is not end to the streach of the universe. Another one of my favoured theories is that there was something before the big bang but the big bang was not the cause of the creation of the universe, instead it was merly another event irrelivent to the creation of the universe.

Also one of my friends seem to think that red shift has something to do with the theory of relativity and that the theory of relativity didnt agree with the fact that time moved at different speeds. Well was it not Einstien who came up with this theory? and was it not also Einstien who said "time is like the flow of a river, in some places it moves faster than others" then my friend said "I am a strong suppourter of Einstein's theory of relativity. and Einstein was a very contradictive man who changed his veiws accordingly." Well! i think someone who contradicts themselves is not very accurate in what they say and there theories should not be trusted so why suppourt them? in acctual fact Einstein was not a contradictive man as who make it far in the world of science contradicting themselves? well i need to tell my friend that if he strongly suppourts the theory of relativity then he needs to find out what it means! (Excuse my ranting.)