What is our universe expanding into?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the question of what the universe is expanding into, challenging the common assertion that it expands without a surrounding space. Many physicists argue that the universe is not expanding into anything, which raises confusion about the implications of constant volume versus increasing distances between galaxies. The conversation critiques the balloon analogy, suggesting it misrepresents the nature of cosmic expansion, and posits that some cosmologists believe in a pre-existing space for multiple universes. Participants express frustration over perceived dogma in physics regarding this topic and seek clarity on the physical interpretations of cosmic expansion. Ultimately, the debate highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the universe's expansion and its implications for cosmology.
  • #31
Time dilation and length contraction are the concepts arising out of Lorentz Transformations. We may discuss in brief Max Born's clarification...

max Born explains that concepts arising out of Lorentz Transformations are only a way of regarding things and cannot be construed as any change in physical reality and hence are outside the scope of law of causality.

One question that arise out of this explanation is, does it reduce Lorentz transformations and theory of relativity to of mere philosophical value? As physicists, we can only be interested in the study of physical reality and the factors that bring about a change in the physical reality.

It would also be important to mention here that length contraction due to cooling of a system (like the metallic structure at CERN that has contracted by 3mm/meter) is explained by different principle. Lorentz transformations predicts change in the systems due to motion. Relativistic mass is one such change and is one of the most important changes Einstein introduced in his special theory.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
universe expansion

Robert;
You may as well give up this discussion. Trying to "logically" convince a group of mathematicians or so called physics majors, that something has to have a space to expand into is a futile and frustrating effort at best. If you asked a group of mathematicians to prove mathematically that "nothing is everything and everything is nothing" each would come up(given enough time)with a different equation that they would swear is irrefutable proof that this statement is true.
Einstein once said in reference to religious belief versus science;
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted,in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot". end of quote.
I fear this argument of universal expansion is one of those domains in which scientific knowledge with all it's mathematical tools has not yet been able to set foot.
However...be assured, there are thousands of logical thinkers out here in the "world beyond math" that have asked the same question you have without getting a logical answer. How laughable that with our meager minds with it's meager tools sitting inside a "bubble" can hope to explain what is happening outside this "realm". When all their mathematical tools and ordered physics fail them...well...the next step for their minds with well defined tools and borders will be to add a creator or god to their equation for they cannot perceive that we humans can exist without one or the other.
No matter how hard you try, these great "genius's" in this forum will never be able to wrap their minds around the "logical thinking" that you have displayed.
You are not alone.
(forgive the emphatic number of quotation marks).
...Rationalism101...
 
  • #33
rationalism101 said:
Robert;
You may as well give up this discussion. Trying to "logically" convince a group of mathematicians or so called physics majors, that something has to have a space to expand into is a futile and frustrating effort at best. If you asked a group of mathematicians to prove mathematically that "nothing is everything and everything is nothing" each would come up(given enough time)with a different equation that they would swear is irrefutable proof that this statement is true.
Einstein once said in reference to religious belief versus science;
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted,in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot". end of quote.
I fear this argument of universal expansion is one of those domains in which scientific knowledge with all it's mathematical tools has not yet been able to set foot.
However...be assured, there are thousands of logical thinkers out here in the "world beyond math" that have asked the same question you have without getting a logical answer. How laughable that with our meager minds with it's meager tools sitting inside a "bubble" can hope to explain what is happening outside this "realm". When all their mathematical tools and ordered physics fail them...well...the next step for their minds with well defined tools and borders will be to add a creator or god to their equation for they cannot perceive that we humans can exist without one or the other.
No matter how hard you try, these great "genius's" in this forum will never be able to wrap their minds around the "logical thinking" that you have displayed.
You are not alone.
(forgive the emphatic number of quotation marks).
...Rationalism101...

Thanks.

I certainly do not treat it as a case of we against them. I am a part of them and hope you are also in the same boat. Development of science or for that matter development of any field of knowledge is not possible by closing down the possibilities. A scientist has to be like a chess player who looks for new openings all the time but he also goes back and studies previous games to see if someone has made a mistake or had a missed a promising line of play.

As far as acceptance of certain facts is concerned, you would agree with me that string theory is devoid of any scientific facts. It's argument is that possibility of existence of strings and extra dimensions cannot be ruled out and existence of extra dimensions can resolve lots of problems of theoeretical physics. With this logic one can propose anything. Science is no longer what it once was, physics definitely is not. Understanding nature is not the priority of some physicists, winning noble prize is the only objective they work for,

I certainly believe that Einstein's arguments presented by you are not correct. These arguments come from the wrong belief that if I cannot understand something then it cannot be understood by anyone. We react to the words and not the concept.

If isotropic and homogenous CMBR shows anything then it shows that universe functions as one unit and that entropy is an active process in the universe and different parts of the universe are in communication with each other. Some scientists fails to realize that in a universe where matter is constantly getting converted into energy, if CMBR is isotropic then some mechanism has to be in place that ensures that energy distribuion is equitable and that with such equitable distribution it is impossible for CMBR anisotropies to exist for such a long time. CMBR anisotropies can only be result of presence of matter and energy that we cannot notice at present due to our observational limitation but I was the first person to predict that dark matter and dark energy must exist even outside the galaxies but as you would expect no one was willing to buy the argument. However, it has now been established that dark matter and dark energy exist even outside the galaxies (independent of baryonic matter). Some scientists are still not willing to accept it even though international team that had reported it has released related data and pictures.

Most of the scientists have started realizing that the current view of the nature is not taking them anywhere but do nto know what to do. It is in such frustration that they have to explore such wild ideas as string theories.


You probably have heard the story 'The Emperor's clothes' but I will still tell it here. There was an emperor who was obsessed with new expensive clothes. Two gentlemen walked into his capital and let it be known they were weavers and could design the clothes that would be invisible to a person who was unworthy of his office or who was unusually stupid.

Emperor summoned them ordered that they weave such clothes for him. They demanded that since clothes were very expensive and they needed their design to be a secret therefore their project should be funded. The funds were granted immediately and two gentlemen promptly set up the looms. They kept on working on empty looms. Eager to know the progress of the work, Emperor sends his most trusted minister to see the progress of the work. Two gentlemen showed the minister empty looms and described most wonderful design and colors of the fabric that was not there at all. Minister was shocked to learn that he was not fit for his office because he could not see anything. He had no choice but to praise the work done by the weavers. He promptly reported the progress to the emperor. On the appointed day, emperor walked into the loom with his minister and a big entourage.

As soon as they entered the loom minister started praising the fineness of the fabric, richness of the colors, and delicacy of design. King could not see anything but had no choice but to approve the clothes. He was promptly made to wear the non-existent clothes and set out on public procession to display the wonderful clothes. Everyone was praising the new clothes of emperor until a child shouted that emperor was not wearing anything at all. Slowly, everyone shouted the obvious fact. Emperor realized that probably they were right but had no choice but to continue with the procession.

We have no choice but to continue with the procession. If scientists take a U-turn then all the Government fundings may be stopped. What do you think would be the outcome of the LHC experiment?

Scientists involved are in a fix. If they report that Higgs Boson has been detected then they are in problem and if they do not declare that they have detected Higgs Boson then they are in bigger problem so the only choice left is to report some sort of positive development and continue the project stating that further tests are required. It happened with LEP and it is happening at Familab and it will happen at CERN.

Hopefully, one day a child will shout that emperor has nothing on.

I agree with what you state about the present condition of physics but if you think that we cannot make a difference then you are giving up too early. Even one person can make a difference and that for me is the crux of the story.

Join hands, have faith in yourself, and believe that you can understand nature. I assure you that you will be able to make a difference.

Best of Luck. Looking forward to your response and response of all like minded persons.
 
  • #34
Science, mathematics, and philosophy have no way to deal with rational, unbounded, unobserved space. Therefore, the question 'into what is the Big Bang Universe expanding ?' is, at best, difficult to understand or answer.

A better question to ask is 'how does one convert rational, unbounded, unobserved space into empirically bounded, observed space?'

Answer: To convert rational, unbounded, unobserved space into empirically bounded, observed space, simply move some three dimensional matter/energy along with an observer into the previously empty space.
 
  • #35
Himanshu777, really inspiring to read what you wrote :)
 
  • #36
Robert100 said:
(D) There are many more ways that other universes can exist. I refer you to the recent writings of Max Tegmark.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html

All these possibilites are well known in the literature, yet most people here, and sadly most physics books, seem unaware of these possibilities. I am at a loss to explain this.

Robert

Could it be that a lot of 'modern cosmology' not only is not physics, it is absurd. When someone states that there is no limit to how fast space itself can expand, that someone has entered the world of Alice in Wonderland. Space, itself, cannot expand faster than the speed of light, simply because space does not expand at all. When matter/energy move in space, they can create volumns that can be expressed mathematically, but no actual space has moved. Mathematics is the language of physics only when it speaks empirically.
 
  • #37
The premise of this question is sound. Nothing doesn't exist. It can't. For the universe to expand, it can't be surrounded by nothing. If nothing is even simply a container, or "empty" space, then it is something. Even to refer to nothing as anything means it is something that can be described, which means it's not nothing. Along with Robert100's question, my second favorite is: "Why isn't there nothing"? Here is where the observer or point of consciousness becomes important... Back to the Q - unless the definition of "expanding" includes an assumption I'm missing, or there are properties associated with distances increasing that I don't understand, I would like to see continued exploration of the question. Robert100, did you move this to the Cosmology forum and are you getting additional responses there? Maybe the question would make more sense if we go back in time: What was here before the Big Bang? It didn't expand into "nothing" - did it?
 
  • #38
You're right in your characterization of what "expanding into nothing" means, but wrong about the implications for cosmology:

The universe isn't "expanding into nothing", it just isn't expanding into anything. Also, this is a 2 year old thread and really isn't a philosophical question anyway, so I'm locking it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
911
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
11K