I Universe Expansion: Does Less Dense Mean Boundaries?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter MagneticMagic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of the universe's expansion regarding density and boundaries. It is established that while the universe is expanding, this does not imply measurable boundaries, as any boundaries would complicate the understanding of what lies beyond them. The conversation also touches on the nature of distant galaxies and the uniformity of the universe, suggesting that faraway galaxies should resemble those nearby. The relationship between dark energy and the expansion of space-time is debated, with questions raised about the speed of dark energy and its role in galaxy formation. Ultimately, the concept of the Big Bang is tied to general relativity, indicating that it cannot occur within a pre-existing space-time framework.
MagneticMagic
Messages
25
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
General question around expansion
If the universe is "expanding", does that mean less dense, or does that mean there are measurable boundaries?

With very far away galaxies that stay "alive" for a "short" time, is most of the very distant observable-from-earth universes now gone?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
MagneticMagic said:
If the universe is "expanding", does that mean less dense,
Yes.
MagneticMagic said:
does that mean there are measurable boundaries?
Not that we're aware of. And any boundaries raise the question of what's outside them, so no boundary (either infinite or finite but closed) is the simpler model.
MagneticMagic said:
With very far away galaxies that stay "alive" for a "short" time, is most of the very distant observable-from-earth universes now gone?
I don't know what you're trying to ask here. But it's worth noting that the universe seems to be pretty much the same everywhere, so far away galaxies are expected to be like nearby ones.
 
To have expansion you need measurable boundaries. I can't find a way around this. If I look at the stretch explanation, like a rubber baloon, a reference point on the surface would see things around it "expanding" away, but this does take away the actual balloon boundary envelope.

If on the other hand I define space-time as being everywhere without a boundary, then all I get is a system that is becoming less dense.

If yet on another hand I look at space-time itself is stretching out without boundaries, things moving in the space-time can appear to be moving faster than light.

And then I wonder about dark energy, massless energy. There's a whole bunch of study around inflation to explain how some galaxies are so far away when there was not enough elapsed time since the "big bang". Why can't massless dark energy travel faster than light? If we follow a BB theory could we not have large sums of dark energy zip out into the abyss of space-time faster than light, magnitudes faster, and then some or that dark energy coalesces into galaxies far far away?

I can't seem to grasp why BB theory wants to wrap in it space-time. Why is the BB simply not an event of energy (mass and massless) in some infinitely large pre-existing space-time?
 
MagneticMagic said:
To have expansion you need measurable boundaries.
Bang a line of stakes in the ground. Come back in a little while and see if the stakes are further apart. If they are then the line is expanding. No need for any boundary.
MagneticMagic said:
I can't seem to grasp why BB theory wants to wrap in it space-time. Why is the BB simply not an event of energy (mass and massless) in some infinitely large pre-existing space-time?
Because it's a result of general relativity, which is a theory of the dynamics of spacetime. The big bang cannot be an event in a pre-existing spacetime because if it were it would have a center, and it does not. This is one of several reasons why your speculation about dark energy is baseless.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
Thread locked.
 
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...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...
Back
Top