B The geometry of the expansion of space

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the geometry of space expansion and its implications for the shapes of triangles formed by galaxies. It is established that as space expands, the distances between galaxies increase uniformly, preserving the angles of triangles but scaling the sides. A misunderstanding arises when assuming a constant increase in distance, which does not accurately reflect the nature of cosmic expansion. The role of gravity is clarified, indicating that while gravity does not cause length contraction, it can decelerate the expansion of space by exerting a force on mass. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of understanding cosmic expansion and its geometric consequences.
benorin
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,442
Reaction score
191
I've been trying to wrap my head around the geometry of the expansion of space, from Science Channel shows I vaguely understand the "every point in space is moving away from every other point in space" and iirc this was uniformly so. Is that correct? If not ignore the rest of this post I suppose because I assume it true for the following: suppose that at a given point in time three galaxies taken as points at their centers form a ##1 : 1 : \sqrt{2}## right triangle. What sort of triangle will these galaxies form later? Let the distance between any two points in space be increased by a length h due to the expansion of space at that time we again measure the triangle, then since each side of the triangle is just the distance between two points itself we will have a ## 1+h : 1+h : \sqrt{2}+h ## triangle, some simple algebra reveals that this is an isosceles triangle which is not a right triangle, so the expansion of space does not preserve right triangles? Not knowing even if I have a correct underlying definition, I will stop here and wait for confirmation. Please correct me if need be and feel free to illuminate any thing you think is in the vein of this post.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
benorin said:
I've been trying to wrap my head around the geometry of the expansion of space, from Science Channel shows I vaguely understand the "every point in space is moving away from every other point in space" and iirc this was uniformly so. Is that correct? If not ignore the rest of this post I suppose because I assume it true for the following: suppose that at a given point in time three galaxies taken as points at their centers form a ##1 : 1 : \sqrt{2}## right triangle. What sort of triangle will these galaxies form later? Let the distance between any two points in space be increased by a length h due to the expansion of space at that time we again measure the triangle, then since each side of the triangle is just the distance between two points itself we will have a ## 1+h : 1+h : \sqrt{2}+h ## triangle, some simple algebra reveals that this is an isosceles triangle which is not a right triangle, so the expansion of space does not preserve right triangles? Not knowing even if I have a correct underlying definition, I will stop here and wait for confirmation. Please correct me if need be and feel free to illuminate any thing you think is in the vein of this post.
Based on the Hubble's law, the recessional velocity of the objects due to the expansion of the universe is proportional to the distance between the objects. Let's label the vertices of the triangle A,B,C. That means, when distance between A and B is doubled during time T, the distance between A and C, and B and C is also doubled during the same time interval T. So the angles will be preserved, just the edges will be scaled. This must be truth becasuse none of the points in the universe is privileged.
 
  • Like
Likes Bandersnatch and russ_watters
benorin said:
I've been trying to wrap my head around the geometry of the expansion of space, from Science Channel shows I vaguely understand the "every point in space is moving away from every other point in space" and iirc this was uniformly so. Is that correct? If not ignore the rest of this post I suppose because I assume it true for the following: suppose that at a given point in time three galaxies taken as points at their centers form a ##1 : 1 : \sqrt{2}## right triangle. What sort of triangle will these galaxies form later? Let the distance between any two points in space be increased by a length h due to the expansion of space at that time we again measure the triangle, then since each side of the triangle is just the distance between two points itself we will have a ## 1+h : 1+h : \sqrt{2}+h ## triangle, some simple algebra reveals that this is an isosceles triangle which is not a right triangle, so the expansion of space does not preserve right triangles? Not knowing even if I have a correct underlying definition, I will stop here and wait for confirmation. Please correct me if need be and feel free to illuminate any thing you think is in the vein of this post.
maybe I could also add, that expansion is observed on the scales where the concerned galaxies are not gravitationally bound, e.g located in different groups or clusters.
Also the reason why you got the different angles is because you incorrectly assumed that during time T, the distance between any two points is increased by constant length h, which cannot work if you think about it a little more.
 
How is it that gravity could slow this expansion of space? I've heard that the presence of mass warps spacetime but this sounds like bending it not contracting it's length. I've taken a standard undergrad three semester course of physics which had little bit of modern physics in it. But I don't really get that stuff quite yet, so please make your answer simple so I can understand. Thanks!
 
benorin said:
How is it that gravity could slow this expansion of space? I've heard that the presence of mass warps spacetime but this sounds like bending it not contracting it's length. I've taken a standard undergrad three semester course of physics which had little bit of modern physics in it. But I don't really get that stuff quite yet, so please make your answer simple so I can understand. Thanks!
Length contraction has nothing to do with gravity. But you don't need GR to understand this. Expansion is just like Newtonian motion of objects flying away from each and every observer, with some initial velocity proportional to distance from the observer. Enclosed in a sphere of radius equal to that distance is some mass, which decelerates the motion.
 
  • Like
Likes Tamar and lomidrevo
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top