- #36
- 19,108
- 14,785
What field?genphis said:is this to say that the galaxies formed statically in the field and they are moving relative to the fields expansion?
What field?genphis said:is this to say that the galaxies formed statically in the field and they are moving relative to the fields expansion?
"The only "thing" in the universe was the field driving inflation; that was what was "expanding" (but working out what that term actually means in this context is somewhat complicated since the field is not an "object" " peterdonis mentioned this i assumed he was talking about the higgs field ?phinds said:What field?
Hm ... OK, I'm not sure about that but Peter knows WAY more than I do. I think then that the answer to your question "is this to say that the galaxies formed statically in the field and they are moving relative to the fields expansion?" is no. In fact I'm not even clear that the question makes any sense.genphis said:"The only "thing" in the universe was the field driving inflation; that was what was "expanding" (but working out what that term actually means in this context is somewhat complicated since the field is not an "object" " peterdonis mentioned this i assumed he was talking about the higgs field ?
genphis said:is this to say that the galaxies formed statically in the field and they are moving relative to the fields expansion?
genphis said:i assumed he was talking about the higgs field ?
so if the galaxies formed after inflation and inflation has ceased, i understand hence the question as to what is currently driving the galaxies away from us.PeterDonis said:No. The galaxies did not form until long after inflation ended.
No, I was talking about the inflaton field (note carefully the spelling), i.e., the field that drove inflation.
AGAIN, I suggest the link in my signature.genphis said:so if the galaxies formed after inflation and inflation has ceased, i understand hence the question as to what is currently driving the galaxies away from us.
genphis said:what is currently driving the galaxies away from us.
does this allow gravity to counter the inertia or are we expanding to a cold none reactive universe?PeterDonis said:Nothing. The expansion of the universe is not "driven" by anything. At the end of inflation, the universe was in a hot, dense, rapidly expanding state. It has continued expanding ever since because of inertia.
(Technically, dark energy provides a very tiny "force" that is causing the expansion to accelerate; but that's a tiny effect next to the inertia that I described above.)
genphis said:does this allow gravity to counter the inertia
genphis said:or are we expanding to a cold none reactive universe?
sorry i meant to slow the expansion and counter the eventual entropy, my knowledge is from a bookcase of various books on physics and Astrophysics from penrose, hawkins, feynman, greene mostly covering quantum mechanics, relativity and special relativity cosmology is an area that is beginning to fascinate me more and more, thank you for your time and generosity of your knowledgePeterDonis said:I'm not sure what you mean. We've already discussed the existence of systems bound by gravity in the universe.
I don't know what you mean by this.
At this point it would be really helpful if you would give some references for where you are getting your understanding of basic cosmology.
I think you are referring to the 'heat death' scenario as the very long term future of the Universe.genphis said:... a cold none reactive universe?
genphis said:i meant to slow the expansion and counter the eventual entropy
genphis said:my knowledge is from a bookcase of various books on physics and Astrophysics
genphis said:I would like help understanding that if mass makes a dent in the fabric of space, does it mean celestial bodies are sitting at different depths in the fabric, and does that mean the less mass in an object you are then more likely to find it at a higher depth.
genphis said:sorry i meant to slow the expansion