Why is space expanding and matter including galaxies not shrinking?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why space is expanding while matter, including galaxies, does not appear to be shrinking. Participants explore the implications of redshift observations and consider alternative explanations for the observed movement of galaxies, debating the nature of space and matter in the context of cosmological expansion.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the observed redshift is due to the expansion of space or if it could be explained by galaxies shrinking relative to each other, suggesting that shrinking could create more space between them.
  • Another participant argues that if galaxies were shrinking in place, they would not get further apart, challenging the initial premise.
  • A counterpoint is made that shrinking galaxies could lead to an increase in the distance between them, using an analogy of deflating balloons to illustrate this idea.
  • Participants discuss the speed of spatial expansion, with one asking how it might relate to the shrinking of galaxies, seeking clarification on the Hubble Constant.
  • There is a mention of historical ideas by Sir Arthur Eddington, indicating that similar thoughts have been considered in the past.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the shrinking hypothesis, noting that if galaxies were shrinking, we would expect to observe parts of them moving toward us, which is not the case for distant galaxies.
  • Another participant emphasizes the role of gravity and dark matter in maintaining the relative positions of galaxies, suggesting that galaxies could still be moving away from us even if they were shrinking.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of a clear explanation for why galaxies would shrink, with a preference for the idea that galaxies are moving apart due to the expansion of the universe.
  • One participant highlights the challenge of distinguishing between the effects of expansion and hypothetical shrinking, suggesting that both scenarios could lead to similar observational outcomes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the redshift and the observed movement of galaxies can be attributed to the expansion of space or to the shrinking of matter. No consensus is reached, and multiple competing hypotheses remain under discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that further scientific foundation is needed to support their ideas, indicating that the discussion is speculative and lacks definitive answers.

WW_III_ANGRY
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
I know it probably looks like a completely stupid question.. But I can't find the answer. Hopefully you all can help me out here.

Essentially, all galaxies are moving further apart, from each other.. each spot in the universe is said to have the same effect of everything moving further apart from each other. This is known via the numerous red shifts.. But, what is the evidence that disproves it is not space/time that is expanding, but it is the galaxies and all matter are not shrinking, all relative to each other, thus creating the widening gap between galaxies and the red shift that ensues due to this furthering gap?
 
Space news on Phys.org
WW_III_ANGRY said:
I know it probably looks like a completely stupid question.. But I can't find the answer. Hopefully you all can help me out here.

Essentially, all galaxies are moving further apart, from each other.. each spot in the universe is said to have the same effect of everything moving further apart from each other. This is known via the numerous red shifts.. But, what is the evidence that disproves it is not space/time that is expanding, but it is the galaxies and all matter are not shrinking, all relative to each other, thus creating the widening gap between galaxies and the red shift that ensues due to this furthering gap?
There's at least one flaw in this logic. Galaxies shrinking in place would not get further apart. They would just shrink.
 
DaveC426913 said:
There's at least one flaw in this logic. Galaxies shrinking in place would not get further apart. They would just shrink.

I say yes they would, because, upon shrinking, the end of their physical realms diminish, thus creating more space in between the two galaxies.
 
WW_III_ANGRY said:
I say yes they would, because, upon shrinking, the end of their physical realms diminish, thus creating more space in between the two galaxies.
Inflate two large balloons till they are a foot in diameter. Place them ten feet apart. Now let the air out of them slowly. When they are half the size (6" in diameter), they will not be 20 feet apart, they will be 11 feet apart.

In the real world, the galaxies are drifting apart much more than 1x their own diameter.

Note that you are beginning to form your own hypothesis here. But the onus is not on me to poke holes in it, the onus is on you to demonstate, not only that it is self-consistent, not just to patch up the holes in it, but to show that it explains our observations better than our existing theories. Until then, we go with the best theory.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Inflate two large balloons till they are a foot in diameter. Place them ten feet apart. Now let the air out of them slowly. When they are half the size (6" in diameter) ,they will not be 20 feet apart, they will be 11 feet apart.

In the real world, the galaxies are drifting apart much more than 1x their own diameter.

Do we know the speed of spatial expansion then? If so, can you explain somewhat? If so, how do we know it wouldn't coincide with the same rate as the shrinking of the galaxies?
 
Last edited:
WW_III_ANGRY said:
Do we know the speed of spatial expansion then? If so, can you explain somewhat?
Read up on the http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html" . Looks like about 73.5km/sec per Megaparsec.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi WW III Angry,

I can confirm that your idea is beyond brilliant, because I thought of it first. But it turns out that Sir Arthur Eddington, the famous UK scientist, thought of it back in the 1930's. The earlier PF response by Marcus addresses your question:

http://https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=220284"

Jon
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC426913 said:
Read up on the http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html" . Looks like about 73.5km/sec per Megaparsec.

Yes, but that link doesn't show an answer to this question: how do we know that galaxies are not decreasing in size that corresponds to create Hubble Constant rate of dispersement throughout the universe, which to our eyes if all things are shrinking relatively, they would always appear to be the same size, thus my dilemena.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonmtkisco said:
Hi WW III Angry,

I can confirm that your idea is beyond brilliant, because I thought of it first. But it turns out that Sir Arthur Eddington, the famous UK scientist, thought of it back in the 1930's. The earlier PF response by Marcus addresses your question:

http://https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=220284"

Jon

Sorry, your link wasn't working.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
WW_III_ANGRY said:
Yes, but that link doesn't show an answer to this question: how do we know that galaxies are not decreasing in size that corresponds to create Hubble Constant rate of dispersement throughout the universe, which to our eyes if all things are shrinking relatively, they would always appear to be the same size, thus my dilemena.

Maybe I misunderstand your idea but if another galaxy would be shrinking, parts of it would be moving toward us and parts of it would be moving away from us, yes? (asuming that our own motion is negligible but even fi we include it the end result is the same).
However we never observe parts of galaxies moving toward us (except for "nearby" galaxies)
 
  • #11
nrqed said:
Maybe I misunderstand your idea but if another galaxy would be shrinking, parts of it would be moving toward us and parts of it would be moving away from us, yes? (asuming that our own motion is negligible but even fi we include it the end result is the same).
However we never observe parts of galaxies moving toward us (except for "nearby" galaxies)

Well no, because gravity still remains relative, keeping the galaxies in place in the same (well possibily unknown manner now, of dark matter/energy as well as the matter of the galaxy) So, more often than not, galaxies would be in its entirety still moving away from us, that means our galaxy is shrinking as well, even perhaps you and me..
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Don't know why the link didn't work, but go to p. 3 of the Forum, where kmarinas asks "Which conserves energy best, expansion of universe or shrinking of matter?"
at 02.03.08 at 02:13

Jon
 
  • #13
WW_III_ANGRY said:
Well no, because gravity still remains relative, keeping the galaxies in place in the same (well possibily unknown manner now, of dark matter/energy as well as the matter of the galaxy) So, more often than not, galaxies would be in its entirety still moving away from us, that means our galaxy is shrinking as well, even perhaps you and me..

The rate of expension of the galaxies is basically known to be roughly 1000km/s which would be roughly enough to make the universe be like 30 million light years across, which isn't quite as big as the 78 billion light year radius some estimate gives.

A typical galaxie like our own is 100,000 light years across, so, its hard to believe the galaxie are shrinking when there's no explanation for it. Well, since we're talking astrophysics, doesn't always have to be an explanation, however, it makes a lot more sense that the galaxie are further away because of the expension of the universe, then some unknown shrinking force.

For one, if your shrinking force was to be exactly as you say it, indistinguishable from expension, we run into the same problem as when we try to work the math with the speed of light not being a constant.

The whole science of man is based on multiple assumptions, such as what's true here is true elsewhere, if we can't use them, then we're basically screwed anyway.
 
  • #14
jonmtkisco said:
Don't know why the link didn't work, but go to p. 3 of the Forum, where kmarinas asks "Which conserves energy best, expansion of universe or shrinking of matter?"
at 02.03.08 at 02:13

Jon

Yes, thanks I see it.. but yes there really isn't an answer yet, because to go further would require scientific foundation for what it than just pure logic and I'm not really sure how exactly to go about doing that myself! As far as for what Marcus said, it is possible though that inside galaxies the the distance of planets itself, well, could they be getting further apart and or as matter shrinks but being very undetectable modern day, yet able to be detected better outside of our galaxy as it is may indeed have a different rate for galaxies as a whole... hmm.. I doubt it yes, but, I think to pursue any further would require data that would need to be debunked.. Yes, it should be pursued scientifically in order to be tested.
 
  • #15
I prefer the term "condensing" to "shrinking".
Why can't both expansion of space and condensing of galaxies be occurring simultaneously?
If matter and energy can not be created or destroyed how is more space being created between the galaxies? at an accelerating rate?
Space is different from matter and energy. It is nothing.
How does space get "warped" (known as gravity) if it is just the NOTHING between STUFF?
Space is very intimately related to gravity, mass, acceleration,energy and of course, time.
Sorry, that's all I've got...
 
  • #16
I find the idea uncomfortable because it confers us a priveleged location in the universe.
 
  • #17
I think Marcus is correct that the old and often mentioned "shrinking matter" hypothesis does nothing to explain the inhomogeneous component of expansion. On the other hand, it seems to me that the "shrinking matter" hypothesis carries a slightly more plausible explanatory power as an alternative to the uniform acceleration of expansion attributed to dark energy or the cosmological constant. In a relativistic view, an expansionary constant is the isotropic, homogeneous flip side of a constant of shrinking.

However, the "shrinking matter" hypothesis probably adds more complexities than it resolves, relating to a changing speed of light, fine structure constant, gravitational density, etc. So unless someone is willing to invest a lot of technical, mathematical analysis in developing a complete theory based on it, philosophizing about it seems like mostly a waste of time.

Jon
 
Last edited:
  • #18
jonmtkisco said:
I think Marcus is correct that the old and often mentioned "shrinking matter" hypothesis does nothing to explain the inhomogeneous component of expansion. On the other hand, it seems to me that the "shrinking matter" hypothesis carries a slightly more plausible explanatory power as an alternative to the uniform acceleration of expansion attributed to dark energy or the cosmological constant. In a relativistic view, an expansionary constant is the isotropic, homogeneous flip side of a constant of shrinking.

However, the "shrinking matter" hypothesis probably adds more complexities than it resolves, relating to a changing speed of light, fine structure constant, gravitational density, etc. So unless someone is willing to invest a lot of technical, mathematical analysis in developing a complete theory based on it, philosophizing about it seems like mostly a waste of time.

Jon

Expanding space: A photon's wavelength increases as space expands while it is in transit.

Shrinking matter: When matter was larger, the photons it emitted had a larger wavelength.

Expanding space: Distant objects tend to be time dilated as a result of their receding due to the expansion of space.

Shrinking matter: Very distant objects in the past tended to be larger than they now but their "internal clocks" have been a lot slower too.
 
  • #19
If galaxies were actually shrinking or condensing, the overwhelming amount of red-shift we see would be hard to explain. Think of it this way- Two galaxies are drawn on a sheet of paper. One on the left and one on the right. Then they are condensed to a smaller size. Something becomes readily apparent. The far right side of the galaxy on the right and the far left side of the galaxy on the left are now closer together than they were before. Where is the blue shift to justify this?
 
  • #20
This thread is based on speculation, and is thus done. Please remember that all discussions in the technical forums must be related to published, peer-reviewed material, preferably with references.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Questions about the Location of the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Expansion-Collapse cycle in cosmological structures?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad How do we know space is expanding?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Undergrad Expansion of space & expansion of matter within space
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
High School Understanding the Expansion of Space: Galaxies Moving Away and Proving Expansion
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
9K
Graduate Expanding space thru matter vs matter thru space
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Dark matter and the fabric of space time,
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Speed of light/electromagnetic waves is constant?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad DDO 68: A Young Galaxy Supporting the Steady State Theory
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School Why doesn't cosmic inflation violate conservation of energy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K