And the real reason for expansion is ....

Ask questions, find resources, browse the virtual shelves.
makc
Commodore
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:25 pm

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by makc » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:57 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:With nature, such knowledge may be impossible.
Right, but I was under impression that you don't really care, wether it is possible to find right formula or not in some particular case.

Such as with the questions that guy puts in the video about time, but you're happy with simple d²s = inv formula as the definition of space and time :) What if "right" answer to those questions would result in better formula?

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 16125
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Chris Peterson » Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:13 pm

makc wrote:Right, but I was under impression that you don't really care, wether it is possible to find right formula or not in some particular case.
Not at all. The question of whether there is an underlying "truth" to the way the Universe works is fascinating. Above all, I care that the theories we derive are functional. If they serve to describe the behavior of nature they are doing their job, and science has done its job. In a very real sense, it does not matter if there are other theories that are equally effective at describing things.

I don't know if any formula we can come up with has any physical meaning beyond describing how things work... a model, if you like. But that doesn't make the question of how the Universe works less interesting. But that question may not be one that science can answer.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Beyond » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:54 pm

swainy wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:indescribable
Now there's a nice word.

:idea:
I agree! It says so much - In so little space.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 20752
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

ars: A short history of the history of the Universe

Post by bystander » Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:48 pm

A short history of the history of the Universe
ars technica | Nobel Intent | 29 June 2010
John Mather, along with George Smoot, won the Nobel Prize for his work on the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), the probe that first caught glimpses of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) left over from the big bang. Those fluctuations are the product of the tiny, random, quantum fluctuations in the Universe immediately after the big bang, which are now visible in the large scale structures of the current Universe, as they produced clusters of galaxies and filaments of dark matter. For his talk at the Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting, Mather took the audience on both a short history of the Universe, and a history of how we've come to understand it.
Mather started out with some background on the Big Bang — although he said he preferred the term used in a Calvin and Hobbes strip, the "Horrendous Space Kablooie." (We'll continue to use Big Bang for now.) He described how, in the early 1920s, Alexander Friedman applied Einstein's equations to the Universe, and figured it must be expanding. Einstein asked his friends, who told him the Universe couldn't be expanding, so he added the cosmological constant in order to preserve the static universe that everyone thought existed.

Friedman died a few years after and, within a year, Hubble published his famous paper, providing evidence of an expanding universe. ("In the same year we learned that the economy could collapse, we learned that the Universe is expanding," Mather quipped.) Mather showed Figure One of Hubble's paper, with red shift (and therefore speed) rising with a galaxy's distance from the Earth.

Once a consensus formed around the Big Bang model, things went through a bit of a slow period. Information on the stability of free neutrons let theorists calculate the expected elemental abundances of hydrogen and helium, and later, the existence of the CMB was predicted, but there wasn't any obvious way to detect it until Penzias and Wilson's famous experiment at Bell Labs found the faint hiss of the CMB. Now, according to Mather, a dedicated high school student could probably manage it. About one percent of the snowflakes you see when you tune a TV in between channels, Mather said, can be ascribed to the CMB.

A useful failure
Mather started his work on the CMB back in graduate school. He said the idea for COBE "came from the failure of my thesis project," which was meant to measure the CMB via balloon-borne instruments. As that work was failing, NASA put out a request for projects, and COBE was born. Its ability to match CMB measurements with theory, immortalized by xkcd, COBE started off a new era of cosmology.

Mather briefly described our current understanding of the Universe. A tiny fragment of a (possibly infinite) collection of material started expanding at a pace faster than light as a false vacuum decayed into a true one. Within fractions of a second, matter and antimatter annihilated, leaving a tiny bias towards matter. As inflation apparently went missing for billions of years, a steady expansion of space time and gravitational effects produced the Universe we now see. But about 5 billion years ago, inflation returned as the expansion of space-time started to accelerate. "We call the cause of this acceleration dark energy, which means we do not have any idea what it is," said Mather.

Right now, we're on version seven of the data produced by COBE's successor, WMAP. And we've now got a model for the Universe that incorporates dark matter and dark energy called ΛCDM that matches the curves returned from WMAP just as well as early inflationary cosmology theory produced a curve that matched COBE.

swainy

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by swainy » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:28 pm

And Now, I find yet another reason for our (Seemingly-delusional) expansion. Get your head around this Guys.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -says.html

TC

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18336
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by neufer » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:48 pm

swainy wrote:And Now, I find yet another reason for our (Seemingly-delusional) expansion. Get your head around this Guys.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -says.html
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 16125
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Chris Peterson » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:02 pm

swainy wrote:And Now, I find yet another reason for our (Seemingly-delusional) expansion. Get your head around this Guys.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -says.html
This doesn't address the reason for expansion at all. The theory seems to take its existence at face value (there is certainly nothing "Seemingly-delusional" about it). What these guys are suggesting is that IF you assume time is slowing down, the well observed apparent INCREASE in the rate of expansion (which is generally attributed to dark energy) would look the same without an actual acceleration. It's an interesting idea, but nothing to get too excited about until it starts proposing methods by which it could be tested or falsified. Until then, the current theory remains the best explanation.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

swainy

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by swainy » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:26 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
swainy wrote:And Now, I find yet another reason for our (Seemingly-delusional) expansion. Get your head around this Guys.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -says.html
This doesn't address the reason for expansion at all. The theory seems to take its existence at face value (there is certainly nothing "Seemingly-delusional" about it). What these guys are suggesting is that IF you assume time is slowing down, the well observed apparent INCREASE in the rate of expansion (which is generally attributed to dark energy) would look the same without an actual acceleration. It's an interesting idea, but nothing to get too excited about until it starts proposing methods by which it could be tested or falsified. Until then, the current theory remains the best explanation.
Its the under-lined part of this, that interests me Chris. Quote:


"Currently, astronomers are able to discern the expansion speed of the universe using the so-called "red shift" technique. This technique relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in color than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout the universe. If time is slowing down, according to this new theory, our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating".

And what other implications would come from this? Remember the redshift conversation we had?
But if Time is slowing down, What of gravity (which I talked about months ago) Light. More or less everything Huh?

I am always looking for the answers.

tc

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 16125
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Chris Peterson » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:37 pm

swainy wrote:"Currently, astronomers are able to discern the expansion speed of the universe using the so-called "red shift" technique. This technique relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in color than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout the universe. If time is slowing down, according to this new theory, our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating".
Yes. That's what they said. That's what I said. Nothing at all about expansion, only about the apparent change in rate of expansion.
And what other implications would come from this? Remember the redshift conversation we had?
But if Time is slowing down, What of gravity (which I talked about months ago) Light. More or less everything Huh?
Not necessarily. No obvious changes in gravitational theory at all. No changes in the physics of cosmological redshift. It might impact the interpretation of other measurements of high-redshift objects.

Again, though, there is little reason to take this report very seriously at this point. The vast majority of such theories turn out to be wrong, and that's the most likely future of this one, too. And that's assuming this actually ever rises to the level of a valid scientific theory, which isn't apparent based on what has been released so far.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

swainy

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by swainy » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:53 pm

Here's some more info on the paper that was published,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/ ... ists-time/

What I want to know is, just how fast was Time running 10 billion years ago?

Thx Chris

User avatar
Henning Makholm
Science Officer
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:06 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Henning Makholm » Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:06 am

swainy wrote:What I want to know is, just how fast was Time running 10 billion years ago?
1 second per second.
Henning Makholm

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 16125
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Chris Peterson » Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:23 am

swainy wrote:Here's some more info on the paper that was published,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/ ... ists-time/
I didn't notice before how old this work is- almost three years. And just about the only references to it are in pop science magazines and blogs. The actual paper is here, and doesn't seem to say quite the same thing as the popular interpretations. It is dense, and based on several layers of speculation on top of speculation. And there doesn't seem to be any followup or much in the way of interest from other researchers. Like so much in string theory, it seems much more about playing mathematical games to demonstrate what could be possible under an assumed set of conditions than it is about actually providing likely explanations for anything.
What I want to know is, just how fast was Time running 10 billion years ago?
Based on my reading of the above paper, and on modern physical theory, I'd say the answer, with a high probability of being correct, is that it was running exactly the same speed as it does now.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 20752
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

NS: Is a cosmic chameleon driving galaxies apart?

Post by bystander » Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:59 pm

Is a cosmic chameleon driving galaxies apart?
New Scientist | 02 Aug 2010
A shape-shifting fifth fundamental force could neatly explain the mystery of dark energy – and some other puzzling astronomical observations

ASK A cosmologist for a potted history of the universe, and it might go something like this: the cosmos began some 13.6 billion years ago with a big bang, exploding from a pinprick of searing heat and incredible density. Since then, it has been cooling and expanding: at first exponentially fast, but soon at a more measured, steady tempo.

At that point our friendly cosmologist might give voice to a little embarrassment. Because if measurements of the distance to faraway supernovae are to be believed, around 5 billion years ago the universe's expansion started to accelerate again. We don't know why. A mysterious "dark energy" permeating space is generally fingered as the culprit. But while this entity apparently flings galaxies apart with gusto, it has never been seen or produced in the lab and seemingly does not interact directly with light or matter on Earth or elsewhere. Such undetectability runs counter to the stuff of science.

Or are we just overlooking evidence that is already there? Some inconsistencies in recent astrophysical observations, easy to dismiss as blips if taken on their own, might invite a startling conclusion when looked at together: that the cosmos is suffused by a fifth force in addition to the canonical four of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. What is unusual about this force is that its range changes according to its environment - a cosmic chameleon that might just explain the mysteries of dark energy.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 11511
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Ann » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:42 am

I have been following the discussion about the fate of the universe for a much longer time than astronomers have known about the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I know that there is a hardcore lot out there who have been around for a long time, and who want to live in a "bouncing universe". This is a universe where the expansion comes to a halt and is followed by contraction, a Big Crunch and then, wonderfully enough, a new Big Bang. The Big Bounce hypothesis postulates that universe will die a "fiery death" and then rise again, phoenix-like, and presumably produce new habitable planets populated by human-like beings. (I can't say that many professional astronomers seemed to be confident that a Big Crunch was coming or that it would give rise to a new Big Bang or a new habitable universe, but some people who wrote popular science books for the general public, as well as some of those who wrote for magazines like Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, really seemed to love the idea.)

So, when astronomers could observe that the unvierse seemed to expand, many of those who wrote for the general public expressed their wishful thinking theories that the universe would contract and collapse and give rise to a new Big Bang. Now, when astronomers can observe that the expansion of the universe seems to accelerate, some of the champions of the Big Bounce universe still look for ways that the universe might collapse and be crunched out of existence, only to rise again. The hypothesis of the "chameleon force" of dark energy seems designed to produce the bouncing universe. Or rather, this new hypothesis seems designed to turn acceleration into deceleration and collapse, which is what is needed to produce a Big Bounce.

As far as I know, there is extremely little stringent tehoretical support for the idea that the universe would rise again if it was crushed out of existence in a Big Crunch, but such nitpicking probably doesn't worry the Big Bounce proponents. After all, there is extremely little hard scientific support for the idea that good people go to Heaven after they die, but lots of believers think it is true anyway. And if good people die and go to Heaven, why shouldn't our good universe die and rise again and go to Big Bang-Heaven? And why shouldn't a new Big Bang produce a universe just like ours, only perhaps a little better?

As a non-religious person, I regard the Big Bounce hypothesis as a mixture of religious ideas and wishful thinking. And I think that the New Scientist is often high on speculation and low on hard facts when it writes about astronomy.

Ann
Color Commentator

makc
Commodore
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:25 pm

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by makc » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:12 am

Ann wrote:As a non-religious person, I regard the Big Bounce hypothesis as a mixture of religious ideas and wishful thinking.
No, no, it's true, I saw it on Futurama. And you know that you can trust Futurama on subjects of astronomy.

p.s. check out wikipedia Big Bounce entry.

User avatar
Henning Makholm
Science Officer
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:06 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Henning Makholm » Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:45 pm

Ann wrote:(I can't say that many professional astronomers seemed to be confident that a Big Crunch was coming or that it would give rise to a new Big Bang or a new habitable universe,
I think the idea that a big crunch would be followed by a big bang is fairly natural and intuitive. Imagine naive (non-relativistic) picture of the "end times" of a collapsing universe, where all galaxies converge towards a central point following an inverse Hubble law. If we assume that each galaxy just coasts through the center as per Newton's First Law, without interacting with the other galaxies doing the same simultaneously, we end up immediately after the crunch event with a universe full of galaxies moving away from each other following a Hubble law, which more or less matches the era we find ourselves in now.

Now, since in the real world galaxies have some proper motion overlaid with the Hubble pattern it didn't seem too fanciful to imagine that most of the matter in a collapsing universe could miss the collapse target by just enough that it wouldn't have to interact with other matter strongly enough to form a singularity. Entire galaxies and probably even individual stars would still collide, but as long as the elementary particles survived, this might just be what was needed to grind up the matter of the universe into the uniform soup that the big-bang theories suppose.

In retrospect, somebody probably ought to have asked themselves where all the entropy of the incoming universe would go during the process, but there are all sorts of ways to think around the Second Law of Thermodynamics if you really want to.

In any case, it was only with the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems from around 1970 that the idea of "just missing the collapse center, and continue by expanding" was conclusively found to be unworkable (at least within General Relativity).
And if good people die and go to Heaven, why shouldn't our good universe die and rise again and go to Big Bang-Heaven? And why shouldn't a new Big Bang produce a universe just like ours, only perhaps a little better?

As a non-religious person, I regard the Big Bounce hypothesis as a mixture of religious ideas and wishful thinking.
Hm, I get a somewhat opposite impression. A lot of the early emotional resistance to the big bang idea came from atheists who felt that the idea that the universe has existed for only a finite time sounded too much like creationism. If the universe was created 15 gigayears ago, there must have been a Creator, nyet? And because only stupid people think there was a Creator, the universe must have been around forever, and we have to find a way to explain the observations without concluding that time started at that point. Ergo: a bouncing universe!

Today of course, the dominant mode of emotional resistance to the big bang seems to come from religuous people who dislike it simply because it is a different story from the 7-day Genesis.
Henning Makholm

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 11511
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Ann » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:01 pm

Henning Makholm wrote: In retrospect, somebody probably ought to have asked themselves where all the entropy of the incoming universe would go during the process, but there are all sorts of ways to think around the Second Law of Thermodynamics if you really want to.
If you really want to... that's pretty much my point, Henning. The bouncing universe seems to be one that many people want, so some astronomers may try their best to oblige them. Demand and supply, you know... where there is a demand for something, some people will do their best to supply it.
Hm, I get a somewhat opposite impression. A lot of the early emotional resistance to the big bang idea came from atheists who felt that the idea that the universe has existed for only a finite time sounded too much like creationism. If the universe was created 15 gigayears ago, there must have been a Creator, nyet? And because only stupid people think there was a Creator, the universe must have been around forever, and we have to find a way to explain the observations without concluding that time started at that point. Ergo: a bouncing universe!
You are talking about Fred Hoyle, aren't you? He was a famous atheist with many strange ideas. I don't think he is very represtentative of atheists, certainly not of modern-day atheists.
Today of course, the dominant mode of emotional resistance to the big bang seems to come from religuous people who dislike it simply because it is a different story from the 7-day Genesis.
Yes, today the Big Bounce seems to be a pretty religious idea.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 20752
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by bystander » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:14 pm

Please leave religion, or lack thereof, out of the discussion, Rule #14.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 11511
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Ann » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:45 pm

Please leave religion, or lack thereof, out of the discussion, Rule #14.
Sorry, bystander. I was out of line.

Religion aside, does anyone know how much support the Big Bounce hypothesis (which postulates that our universe is going to undergo collapse and then rise again, phoenix-like, from the ashes of the Big Crunch) receives from professional astronomers of today?

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 16125
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Chris Peterson » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:53 pm

Ann wrote:Religion aside, does anyone know how much support the Big Bounce hypothesis (which postulates that our universe is going to undergo collapse and then rise again, phoenix-like, from the ashes of the Big Crunch) receives from professional astronomers of today?
Not much, because it depends on the Universe collapsing in a Big Crunch. That idea made sense before observations demonstrated with a fair degree of certainty that the expansion rate of the Universe is increasing, and therefore it will not ever collapse.

Some ideas ("theory" is probably too strong) are out there that the Universe may be the bounce from a previous one, but if that was part of a cyclic pattern, it appears to have stopped with our universe.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Henning Makholm
Science Officer
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:06 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Henning Makholm » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:06 pm

Ann wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote: In retrospect, somebody probably ought to have asked themselves where all the entropy of the incoming universe would go during the process, but there are all sorts of ways to think around the Second Law of Thermodynamics if you really want to.
If you really want to... that's pretty much my point, Henning. The bouncing universe seems to be one that many people want, so some astronomers may try their best to oblige them. Demand and supply, you know...
That's a bit uncharitable. Would those astronomers not be able to want things for themselves? The Second Law sounds pessimistic enough on its face that I really cannot fault the theorist who wants to find a way around it.
You are talking about Fred Hoyle, aren't you?
Not that I know of. The name doesn't ring any particular bell. (Untill I googled. It probably should have, but I'm bad with names).
I don't think he is very represtentative of atheists, certainly not of modern-day atheists.
I was not implying that that the (un)reasoning I described was representative of "atheists" in general. I would sooner claim that readheads have a uniform opinion about building codes.
Yes, today the Big Bounce seems to be a pretty religious idea.
I don't think the Big Bounce itself even has enough serious advocates today that trying to generalize about their motivation is very enlightening. It is unattractive from a scientific point of view (because of thermodynamics and GR), and it doesn't go far enough for those who're willing to disregard scientific evidence for religious reasons. (If you want a 7-day genesis, you'll want to avoid the big bang altogether, not precede it by an earlier universe).
bystander wrote:Please leave religion, or lack thereof, out of the discussion, Rule #14.
Hmm, I thought we were covered by "Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions." It's not as if Ann and I are trying to convert each other ...
Henning Makholm

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Beyond » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:56 pm

To me, the expansion of the universe reminds me of a loaf of bread rising. Except that the cause of rising in the loaf, at some point, will run out of oomph and the loaf will fall greatly, if not baked(set in place)just before the greatest height in rising.
The Universe, to me, will expand untill it stops and then it will just stay there in an expanded state, just like everything else that is animated(living?)does. Does not matter whether it is plant,animal or human, all grow into the size that they grow into and then stop and stay that way. So unless the Earth is a separate entity from the Universe - the Universe should also grow into its own size and then stop, just like everything else does.
So the real reason for expansion is....so that everthing can attain it's full size.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 16125
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:30 pm

beyond wrote:The Universe, to me, will expand untill it stops and then it will just stay there in an expanded state, just like everything else that is animated(living?)does.
Perhaps that is how you see it, but you should distinguish this philosophical viewpoint from the scientific one, which rather strongly suggests the Universe will continue to expand forever- an idea that is not at odds in any way with any fundamental scientific concepts, or even with many naturally observed phenomena at our scale.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

swainy

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by swainy » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:43 pm

Henning Makholm wrote:Hmm, I thought we were covered by "Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.
Bare with it, it will come to my point. 1 of 5

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=35qntqRBo5I

There are some shocking stats in Part two. Quote: Any fine tune, to any value in the universe, and we would not exist.

tc

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post by Beyond » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:01 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
beyond wrote:The Universe, to me, will expand untill it stops and then it will just stay there in an expanded state, just like everything else that is animated(living?)does.
Perhaps that is how you see it, but you should distinguish this philosophical viewpoint from the scientific one, which rather strongly suggests the Universe will continue to expand forever- an idea that is not at odds in any way with any fundamental scientific concepts, or even with many naturally observed phenomena at our scale.
Actually it is not at odds with what i said either, at least the way i see it. It could be that as far as human-kind is concerned, the Universe will never reach it's fully expanded state.
It would seem that the bigger part of science is observation. I observe that all animated Beings start off smaller than their full growth and expand into it and then stop expanding(unless you eat a lot of the material that is around the hole of the donut). That would seem to me to be a scientific observation.
I also have discovered through scientists and other ways, that the material of the Earth that we come from has come from the Universe that is expanding. There-fore the logical conclusion that i have reached is that we(Humans)are a very small version of a bigger happening - The Universe.
By extrapolation of the smaller part(US)to the bigger part(Universe)the bigger part should also have a full growth size at which point it also stops growing.
However, having said that, we the smaller just do not have any idea of what the full growth size of the bigger is and may not be able to comprehend it even if we did know. So for all "PRACTICAL" purposes(not actual purposes)the universe will never stop expanding.
However, having said that, there is a motion law that says - "a body in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by a Greater force." IF some day the Universe should encounter a Greater force than itself -- we may find ourselves in just a little bit of trouble.
I would say that i have followed mostly scientific principles in reaching my conclusion. After this post, perhaps my prior post will not appear to be to be so Philosophical, whatever that is.

Here is another observation that i have about the real reason for expansion. When the tempreture of water drops to a certain degree, there is a molecular change and the water expands. Extrapolating the smaller to the bigger - The Universe has been cooling off for quite a while now. I see that just as water, the universe may have reached a trigger point of some kind and has speeded up to try and attain it's full size before complete entropy sets in.

Chris -- you said that the scientific viewpoint strongly suggests the Universe will continue to expand forever - an idea that is not at odds in any way with any fundamental scientific concepts.

Unless of course complete entropy sets in and we all find out if the laws of thermodynamics are right and the Universe comes to a stop, or the Universe keeps going and we find out that someting else is driving the expansion.

So far i have presented three examples of expansion that work differently. I would now like to present a 4th example of expansion - Eating. No, not the eating around the donut hole kind, the Black Hole kind. From what i have managed to pick up about black holes, the bigger ones are bigger because they eat more and they eat more because there is more around them to eat.

I see the Universe as needing more energy to keep itself going as it gets bigger from expanding. Not much seems to be known about energy except that it can't be created or destroyed by anything that man is aware of. I see that it is entirely possible that at the spot where the big bang happened, the Universe is drawing energy through from somewhere else (like someone sucking through a straw)to keep itself energized as it grows. If the Universe is indeed like us and vice-versa, then things wear out and have to be replaced. Whereas we consume formed energy, the Universe would only need to consume raw energy, to feed to all it's processes and they would convert the raw energy into whatever was needed, just as we do with formed energy.

I have presented these 4 examples because i see that 4 is a base number for many things in this Universe. They are all different examples of the same thing - expansion.
I see these four examples as each containing a clue to something important. Perhaps one day someone will be able to find the clues and put them together and.........well, i don't know. That hasn't happened as yet. But it just may have something to do with the Theory of Everything.
Thats how i see it, now.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.