A question of space and time?

[Gibbs505]

I have been wondering about space, big bang, dark energy and dark matter for a while.
I have read a bit and been interested in these thing for a while but I don't have a degree, in any discipline, just a interest and wonder.

I would like to pose two questions, suppositions actually to anyone who maybe as interested in this as I am.

If any one is, we can continue or if not, this thread could be deleted.

The question is, what is driving the expansion of the universe and second, can it be turned around?

I can put my take on this in greater deal if some are interested.
No need for any images!!!

 

[FrankO]

"The question is, what is driving the expansion of the universe and second, can it be turned around?"

Traditional physics says The Big Bang.

More recent physics says Dark Energy (despite, like dark matter, there being absolutely no concrete evidence for this) and notes that the expansion is accelerating.

But it could be many things ... for mine Relativity plays a part (time passes faster in the space between galaxies due to gravitational effects within galaxies slowing it ... and the differential causing a 'pressure cooker effect' by intergalactic space on galaxies that we observe in both the universe's 'accelerated' expansion and the tendency of galaxies to hang together).

Quantum effects of exotic particles (dark matter?) in the intergalactic space could also have an effect on the universe's expansion ... e.g. what if the majority of 'matter' in intergalactic space was actually inimical to gravity - was repelled rather than attracted by gravity. (This would also make said 'dark matter' incredibly rare and probably undetectable inside galaxies .... but add appreciably to the 'pressure cooker' effect)

There are any number of other explanations for the universe's expansion ...

I suppose my point is that we live in a very rare piece of real estate in the context off the universe ... the volume of space taken up by galaxies and their hundreds of billions of overlapping gravity wells is probably less than .0025% of the total volume of the universe, and planet Earth and its near neighbourhood occupy a vanishingly small amount of that. As a consequence we have a VERY limited perspective of what makes up the universe ... yet we try and fit our limited experience onto the universe as a whole .... when conditions in the other 99.9975% of the universe may be totally different to what they are in any given galaxy or even any given solar system.

My guess is that unless and until we can actually travel to, and test and sample, the rest of the universe (and/or the much theorised multiverse) - and there's not much chance we'll EVER do that - we'll remain in the dark (no pun intended), and all we'll do is fine-tune our theories ad infinitum.

That said, all the theorising is great fun and keeps us all occupied. Personally I miss the world being carried on the Great Turtle or on Ajax's shoulders.

And how the heck did we get into this discussion anyway? Metaphysical physics in Crux Forums ... who'd have thunk it?

 

[Barbaria1]

CF is, as I’ve always said, quite educational and wide ranging. We cover a lot here already. No reason why, in my mind, we shouldn’t be broad minded and take on the mysteries of the universe as well.

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

My guess is that unless and until we can actually travel to, and test and sample, the rest of the universe (and/or the much theorised multiverse) - and there's not much chance we'll EVER do that - we'll remain in the dark (no pun intended), and all we'll do is fine-tune our theories ad infinitum.

An interesting point but not necessarily true. In astronomy, we have never been able to test and sample anything outside our Solar System (and not even that beyond a few miles up in the atmosphere until sixty years ago.

By dint of meticulous earth-bound observation and incredibly clever calculation and reasoning, Astrophysicists today can explain much of what happens "up there" and even debate and look for evidence of answers to the questions that you point out are still unanswered.

 

[FrankO]

An interesting point but not necessarily true. In astronomy, we have never been able to test and sample anything outside our Solar System (and not even that beyond a few miles up in the atmosphere until sixty years ago.

By dint of meticulous earth-bound observation and incredibly clever calculation and reasoning, Astrophysicists today can explain much of what happens "up there" and even debate and look for evidence of answers to the questions that you point out are still unanswered.

Well, yeah ... but:

We've been able to design and run experiments to test and validate theories like Relativity (light bending around known gravitational wells) ... which were predicted by the Theory's originator when instruments weren't in existence to observe and measure same

Second, we've proposed solutions (e.g. dark matter/dark energy) to 'problems' we've observed with the Classic Theories (Why don't galaxies fly apart? Why is the universe's expansion accelerating? etc etc) with scant regard for observable facts.

Third, we've invented 'theories' (for which the math is constantly being updated when new holes appear... but which is 'elegant' .... and the number of dimensions necessary seems to be blowing out past 16 at last count from memory) like String Theory that are supported as far as I can see only by their invented maths and very little else.

And you do admit that the questions are and will continue to be unanswered ... after all no Scientific Theory is ever proved. By scientific methodology researchers try to prove the Null Hypothesis not the theory, and the theory only holds up until the Null Hypothesis is proved. Science is institutionalised skepticism .... not a means of getting to an end.

As for testing outside the solar system ... inside a galaxy gravity seems to be the go. For a while Newtonian Physics proved to be the go, then relativity took over and now the two most stupid questions anybody can ask are "Where am I?" and "What time is it?" The point is that the conditions on Earth seem to be broadly similar to this eon the rplanets, and stars and their attendant solar systems all seem to follow the rules.

It's where the rules get broken that we disagree.

Brian Schmidt and his partner observed that the universe's expansion was accelerating ... which doesn't follow the observable rules. Other astrophysicists wondered why our galaxy didn't fly apart, given that there's insufficient mass inside it to provide the necessary granitic brake to doing so ... which doesn't follow the observable rules.

Easy Solution: There must be simultaneously more mass and more energy to explain this breaking of the rules. Let's call them 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'

But, and as I illustrated with only a couple of examples, there are alternative solutions that fit like their neat little problem solvers .... and in the absence of anybody trapping some dark matter or dark energy, that is concrete replicable evidence, these theories are only as good as the creation myths of the past.

How do you design an experiment to trap something that doesn't exist? What happens if even after years of these experiments (from the early neutrino trapping experiments to that recent dark matter/dark energy trapping experiments) nothing is found. When do you admit that there may be some holes in your Theory?

 

[Madiosi]

https://www.cruxforums.com/xf/resources/we-came-in-peace-by-wragg.479/update/484/

 

[Gibbs505]

Okay, my admiringly untutored and amateur musing.
First, the only equation that I know, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Also known to all engineers, accident reconstruction experts and hunters/shooters (Those who make their own ammo anyway) as energy equals mass time velocity squared.

But is we divide both sides of the equation by the velocity we get energy divided by velocity equals mass.
You'll see where I am going in a moment.

Assumption number One: That there is merit in the Dark matter/ energy theory and their proportions are roughly 27/66%. That is there is something 'fueling' the dark energy and this could only be the dark matter. A reasonable assumption is that they were created the same time as the 'visible' universe was created, if the 'big bang' theory is correct, that last is a question for another day.
Assuming a roughly equal existence of Dark matter/ energy at the beginning then dark matter seems to be fueling dark energy in the expansion of the cosmos in accordance with Einstein's equation above.

But could the process be reversed as I did above, hey matter had to come from somewhere, correct? Big bang or no big bang, the stuff we are made of had to come from somewhere!

Assumption number two. That some time in the distant future, there won't be enough dark matter to fuel the dark energy and this will trigger a crisis. This will cause the dark energy to freeze into dark matter and the resulting surge of gravity will drive the cosmos will start to collapse in on it self, triggering another "big bang".

OK, that is my theory, you can all start to laugh now.

 

[Silent_Water]

I hope, you will not be disappointed, but just in this moment I am sitting at my notebook and in front of me on the desk is Carl Sagan's "fat" book "Cosmos" in its German version "Unser Kosmos" and your theory or theories is described there in several scientific versions as well as in religious-mythical ones, but - as far as I read now - without the "dark matter" which was not yet such a big topic, when "Cosmos" was in the early 1980's a successful scientific TV serial about astronomy for the interested public. "Cosmos" was also broadcast as "Unser Kosmos" (= Our Cosmos) in Germany and made this book with the same name such a success in Germany, too.
The basic scientific idea was that of an "universal explosion" which will be reversed by its own gravity which causes the matter of this explosion to fall into itself again after about 80 billion years.
Sagan also quotes very old "cosmology" ideas of ancient cultures and mentions that even the Hindu religion in India thought of the universe as a "pulsing system" in - probably a pure coincidence (?) - "astronomical" time lengths. For example, the Hindu religion is probably the only one, in which a "day of Brahma" lasts 8,64 billion years until the "system" is restarted again. After a hundred "Brahma years" (!), a new universe is created.
(Quotation of Carl Sagan: "Unser Kosmos", page 270.)

Silly joke by a German comedian of those days: "This is probably the reason why all religious Indian Hindus have this red "restart-button" on their foreheads!"

 

[phl]

Okay, my admiringly untutored and amateur musing.
First, the only equation that I know, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Also known to all engineers, accident reconstruction experts and hunters/shooters (Those who make their own ammo anyway) as energy equals mass time velocity squared.

If I remember correctly, the first equation is from quantum phisics, but the second is from newtonian phisics. The first is more precise, but with the second you can count more easily. Don't mix them

 

[Hugin&Munin]

I have been wondering about space, big bang, dark energy and dark matter for a while.
I have read a bit and been interested in these thing for a while but I don't have a degree, in any discipline, just a interest and wonder.

I would like to pose two questions, suppositions actually to anyone who maybe as interested in this as I am.

If any one is, we can continue or if not, this thread could be deleted.

The question is, what is driving the expansion of the universe and second, can it be turned around?

I can put my take on this in greater deal if some are interested.
No need for any images!!!

The huge problem is that we can only look into the past from our tiny stone ball. Since the speed of message transmission in our universe is limited to the speed of light, it takes a correspondingly long time before we can receive an image. Unfortunately, hyperspace radio is only available as science fiction, so it is of no use to mankind. If it were then also true that the universe was expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, the information we could get would be limited to a time of 13.819 billion years in the past, although there could be a lot more, us but should never be able to see that.
For comparison: the light takes 1.28 s from the moon to the earth
The light from the sun only reaches us after 8 minutes 20 seconds.
And so light needs 13.819 billion years from the observable edge of the universe.
I refrain from converting these distances into km or miles.

By the way, my interest in astronomy was aroused by the book: Space, earth, human"Weltall, Erde, Mensch" which everyone in the former GDR received at youth consecration "Jugendweihe".
For those who don't know, "Jugendweihe" was the communist substitute for church confirmation or communion.

 

[montycrusto]

I’ve always liked the idea that gravity either attracts or repels, depending on which way time is flowing. But I’m pretty sure I got it from science fiction rather than science.

 

[dfg42]

How do you design an experiment to trap something that doesn't exist? What happens if even after years of these experiments (from the early neutrino trapping experiments to that recent dark matter/dark energy trapping experiments) nothing is found. When do you admit that there may be some holes in your Theory?

It isn't said that dark matter doesn't exist, it is said it is not seen: Dark. There are experiments running that try to find yet not detected elementary particles, which could then be the dark matter or part of it. The other possibility is that the laws of nature we know have still some space for improvement, as you mention. But also there work is done, look as example for MOND theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

I personally also believe the Einsteinian Theories are to be modified, he knew that himself very well, but was not able to do it, how are we then? Last thing I heard about the astronomy department of my nearest city was an harassment scandal, which lead to the firing of a professor who insisted that her female doctorands should work instead of making to much manicure (no I am not joking!). Sorry I can not take such an University serious anymore. Anyway there are so many errors in the current science say in the climate or the corona hoax I hardly find time to look at space. However, you ask what to look at so with official theory the books of Michio Kaku are surely worth to read, if you like an open-set discussion read, unfortunately mostly German books of Unzicker, one translated is

Unzicker, A: Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their Credibility : Unzicker, Alexander, Jones, Sheilla: Amazon.de: Bücher

Unzicker, A: Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their Credibility | Unzicker, Alexander, Jones, Sheilla | ISBN: 9781137278234 | Kostenloser Versand für alle Bücher mit Versand und Verkauf duch Amazon.

www.amazon.de

 

[montycrusto]

so many errors in the current science say in the climate or the corona hoax

Jesus fucking wept

 

[Barbaria1]

Such a lively spacey discussion here. CF IS TRULY AN AMAZING PLACE, set in its own special atmosphere, where all of us crux girls can attest to the fact that gravity is painfully real when hanging from a cross of @messaline ’s French premium wood or from a @thehangingtree noose.

 

[Silent_Water]

I know that I am repeating me and us here, but some time ago I have read this book ...

Colin McGinn: The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World

... which sounds even more interesting in its German version: "Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie?" (= "How does the Mind come into the Materia?") and the funny thing about that is its philosophical approach because Colin McGinn is a philosopher, not a neurologist or psychiatrist. So, the neurologists and psychiatrists said: "We have already solved this question because we are the experts and McGinn is not an expert in our understanding for this problem."
But when I read their explanations, I understand them even less than McGinn's approach.

Unfortunately, this is an additional problem for mankind: There are experts who cannot really explain their research for the interested public because they are almost speaking in an expert's language, there are also "experts" who only pretend to be experts and there are even experts who do not want tthe public to know as much as they do. A German postgraduate once told me about a professor for economy in Spain who had a secret part in his university's library in which he only let go "the illuminated" of his students because the usual students were not regarded by him to be intelligent enough to understand these "secrets about society and economy"!?!???

So, I am afraid, everything of all human discussions is really interesting but in the end, we will come again to these everlasting truths of all human philosophy ( which I copy from one of my older threads here, so I apologize for quoting myself and two others of our greatest philosophers here ) :


That could all possibly be true, because we all do not know so many real certainties ... hm ... OK, ... usually it depends to which of these three human categories we are belonging:

1. A scientist is someone who is blindfold and looking in a dark room for a black cat.

2. A philosopher or a metaphysicist is someone who is blindfold and looking in a dark room for a black cat, which is probably not there.

3. A dogmatic (e.g.: Marxist, Leninist etc.) or a theologian (e.g.: Catholic, Protestant etc.) is someone who is blindfold and looking in a dark room for a black cat, which is most probably not there and never was there, but suddenly a shouting is heard from the dark room: "I found the cat!"

Malin's scientific extension:
4. a) And to lead the good life ... try to be the cat, and never get caught.

Loxuru's scientific extension:
4.b) A quantumphysicist puts the black cat into the dark room, stays outside, and says : “I am not sure if there really is a cat inside there!”

 

[thehangingtree]

Such a lively spacey discussion here. CF IS TRULY AN AMAZING PLACE, set in its own special atmosphere, where all of us crux girls can attest to the fact that gravity is painfully real when hanging from a cross of @messaline ’s French premium wood or from a @thehangingtree noose.

The noose is quicker but either way the pain is paid for by a lovely display of you condemned bodies!!!

 

[Loxuru]

Such a lively spacey discussion here. CF IS TRULY AN AMAZING PLACE, set in its own special atmosphere, where all of us crux girls can attest to the fact that gravity is painfully real when hanging from a cross of @messaline ’s French premium wood or from a @thehangingtree noose.

Imagine : Tree enjoys a Seagram's after having crucified Barb, as she suddenly walks in.
Surprised, Tree asks how Barb managed to get from your cross.
Barb : "Didn't you notice? The expansion of the universe has just stopped and turned around. I just could jump from my cross and walk in here!"
Tree can hardly believe, thinking perhaps he should consume a bit less Seagram's. But Barb points to the unmistakable evidence : the bottle of Seagram's got mysteriously full again.

 

[Jollyrei]

How do you design an experiment to trap something that doesn't exist?

Perhaps the trap is the problem. If you want to catch a linkie, and your trap is empty, it is likely a fallicy to conclude she doesn't exist.

When do you admit that there may be some holes in your Theory?

There are always holes. Science is about filling them.

Now, is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

 

[Silent_Water]

Perhaps the trap is the problem. If you want to catch a linkie, and your trap is empty, it is likely a fallicy to conclude she doesn't exist.

There are always holes. Science is about filling them.

Now, is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

I am a friend of Solomonic judgments and hence, I think, "Hell" is both: not only endothermic ...
(the devil is obviously very active not only in his underworld but also in our world, so he must be very endothermic as his surrounding does, too!)
... but also exothermic ...
(because hell sets free more energy than it produces for itself, so hell can never freeze over as we know from all our human proverbs!) !

q.e.d. / Quod erat demonstrandum. (I just had to brag a bit with my knowledge of Latin from the famous French "Asterix" - comics!)

 

[djh]

Such a lively spacey discussion here. CF IS TRULY AN AMAZING PLACE, set in its own special atmosphere, where all of us crux girls can attest to the fact that gravity is painfully real when hanging from a cross of @messaline ’s French premium wood or from a @thehangingtree noose.

You are special.