What is the expansion of the universe

[The5thElement]

Just thinking of Hubble's simple expansion of the universe or galactic recession (ignoring inflation).

How is it possible or practical to say that the universe is expanding? For something to expand, it has to expand relative to something else (if not, then inertial frames would not be relative). But if everything was expanding, then nothing would be. You could always say either the whole universe was expanding, or shrinking or neither expanding or shrinking, and the effect would be the same.

One teacher told me that it is just the space between the galaxies that is expanding, but that made little sense, since our galaxy would soon be crushed by the space that surrounds us.

 

[jedishrfu]

When scientists say space is expanding they mean the space between stars not the stars themselves. We measure speed of expansion by measuring the redshift of objects. In every direction we look for objects outside of our galaxy we see red shifts that are proportional to the distance the object is from us. From that we conclude that things are moving away because the universe is expanding. It's statistically small that everything we measured just happens to be traveling away from us of their own volition and so conclude that no the universe must indeed be expanding.

Conversely, we could say that all matter is shrinking but that means we are being affected by the shrinkage and that might not hold up well mathematically. As we shrink so would our measuring sticks. Hence making it appear that other objects are moving away from us. So by equivalence we choose the universe is expanding option so that we remain invariant along with our measuring sticks.

 

[Radrook]

Just thinking of Hubble's simple expansion of the universe or galactic recession (ignoring inflation).

How is it possible or practical to say that the universe is expanding? For something to expand, it has to expand relative to something else (if not, then inertial frames would not be relative). But if everything was expanding, then nothing would be. You could always say either the whole universe was expanding, or shrinking or neither expanding or shrinking, and the effect would be the same.

One teacher told me that it is just the space between the galaxies that is expanding, but that made little sense, since our galaxy would soon be crushed by the space that surrounds us.

Your teacher should have qualified her statement. It's the voids that separate galactic superclusters which are arranged as filaments and walls surrounding these voids that is expanding. The space within supereclusters themeselves or regular clusters, or solar systems or anywhere else where gravity predominates isn't expanding. The effect is that the supercluster fillaments are becoming more distant from one another regardless of their individual proper motions. The effect does not appear to be a crushing one.

Supervoids and superclusters point to dark energy
BY DR EMILY BALDWIN

The nature of dark energy is one of the biggest puzzles of modern science, but it is thought to work against the tendency of gravity to pull galaxies together, causing the Universe’s expansion to speed up. Impressively, astronomers from the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy were able to catch this elusive dark energy in action as it stretches out the largest known structures in the Universe: supervoids and superclusters, vast regions of space half a billion light years across, containing either a deficit or surplus of galaxies, brought about by density fluctuations in the early Universe.


http://www.astronomynow.com/080730Supervoidsandsuperclusterspointtodarkenergy.html

About the expansion itself generating a logical paradox, you are right, it does. Especially if we dogmatically insist that the universe is infinitely large which means it is boundless. Which creates the paradox can something which is boundless or infinite in size actually increase? If it indeed increases then it wasn't infinite to begin with because to increase means to exceed former boundaries. If the universe is finite then that leaves room for an increase into something and permits such theories as the multiunivers and the brane theories to be viable.


Nonsense?


To assume that whatever is mathematically representable provides indisputable proof of its existence in nature constitutes a conclusion based on a false premise. There are presently many theories involving dimensions as part of the String Theory expressed mathematically and their existence via the scientific method is as yet improvable and might well turn out to be just as bogus as other once-popular mathematically viable ideas have.

The problem arises when we confuse potential infnity, as in a number line, with boundless tansfinite spatial infinity. Potential infinity allows for the addition of more space just as a number line allows it. However, transfinite infinity does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity



Here are some links in agreememt with this conclusion:

Aristotle also distinguished between actual and potential infinities. An actual infinity is something which is completed and definite and consists of infinitely many elements, and according to Aristotle, a paradoxical idea, both in theory and in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

Can anything 'real' be infinite?
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What is infinity.htm

 

[phinds]

About the expansion itself generating a logical paradox, you are right, it does. Especially if we dogmatically insist that the universe is infinitely large which means it is boundless. Which creates the paradox can something which is boundless or infinite in size actually increase? If it indeed increases then it wasn't infinite to begin with because to increase means to exceed former boundaries.

you need to read up on infinity. there is no paradox at all.

2 x infinity = infinity

 

[Drakkith]

How is it possible or practical to say that the universe is expanding? For something to expand, it has to expand relative to something else (if not, then inertial frames would not be relative).

It is expanding relative to itself. The easy way to see it is to understand that when we look at the universe we see that all points in the universe are moving further apart as time goes on. From our point of view no matter what direction we look in we see galaxies moving away from us. The rate at which they recede from us is increasing as we look further back in time, as things that are further away are further back in time since the speed of light is finite. Using math and models we can view another galaxies point of view and it happens to be exactly like our own. From it's point of view everything in the universe is expanding away from it. This holds true for all points in the universe. Hence, the universe itself is expanding, everything is getting further away from everything else.

But if everything was expanding, then nothing would be. You could always say either the whole universe was expanding, or shrinking or neither expanding or shrinking, and the effect would be the same.

Things like stars, planets, galaxies, and etc are not increasing in size. It is space itself that is expanding. The 4 fundamental forces of nature hold these things together as space expands.

One teacher told me that it is just the space between the galaxies that is expanding, but that made little sense, since our galaxy would soon be crushed by the space that surrounds us.

While saying that space itself is expanding is the most correct way of thinking about it, it may be easier to just understand that all objects in the universe are getting further away from each other. If you wish to consider the matter further, then you would need to understand that without the expansion of space far away galaxies would not be able to recede from us faster than the speed of light. (Which they are doing) It is also responsible for the redshift of light, as the expansion causes photons to increase in wavelength, making them "redden" This cannot be adequately explained without the expansion of space currently. The reasons why are fairly complex and thus we have an entire field called Cosmology devoted to understanding it.

 

[salvestrom]

you need to read up on infinity. there is no paradox at all.

2 x infinity = infinity

Infinity starts (no pun intended) with the Indians and the Veda. It is a created concept. As such it is entirely open to debate what it really means, and how it "works". Do you want to take Aristotle's view, or the mathematicians? It's a matter of taste. Neither has been conclusively proved right or wrong. My personal argument tends to revolve around the notion of being able to actually create an infinite set of numbers.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a matter of taste. Neither has been conclusively proved right or wrong.

It is not proven; it is defined. In mathematics, we define what infinity means. If we mean something else, we must be explicit in saying so.

I am fairly certain that the Indians and Veda had their own (non-English) word for what they were describing, and there's actually no reason to suppose it is the identical concept to what mathematics defines as infinity.

 

[Ken G]

I actually don't like saying that "what's really true" is that "space itself is expanding," that's really just a picture one can use pretty effectively (if we realize as said above it's only the space on the largest scales, not "between galaxies"). The theory we use to talk about the universe is general relativity, and in general relativity there is no such thing as space by itself, the correct manifold is spacetime. However, there is a particularly convenient way to coordinatize spacetime that relies on the "cosmological principle," and this coordinatization is so convenient it is almost always used. It makes a coordinate chart that matches the local average standard of rest, averaged over all the nearby galaxy clusters. In those coordinates, simultaneity is defined as sharing the same proper age of the local standard of reference. And in those coordinates, distances between galaxy clusters increases as a function of proper age. There is no "reason" for this, other than that it is the appropriate solution to the Einstein equations about how the metric evolves that determines what distances are. We really cannot say that "space itself is expanding", because there is currently no such thing as a model of space, such that someone could say if it is expanding or not. Maybe some of these issue will be clarified once we understand what dark energy is, but we should certainly be prepared for a big surprise.

 

[alphachapmtl]

When they say "Universe is expanding", it is just another (confusing) way to say "Matter is contracting".
Space is not expanding.
Too bad "expansion of the universe" is now the standard language.

 

[alphachapmtl]

When scientists say space is expanding they mean the space between stars not the stars themselves. ...

Why? (And how?)
Clearly this so-called expansion has to somehow vary continuously, so that the distance between proton and electron in a hydrogen atom does not expand at the same rate as the distance between clusters of galaxies.
Does the space between Earth and Moon expand?
Between Sun and Galactic center?
Between Sun and Andromeda?

 

[Spourk]

My personal argument tends to revolve around the notion of being able to actually create an infinite set of numbers.

You should familiarize yourself with Pi.

Although that isn't a set I spose. Just a single number, with over 10 trillion decimals places (and counting).

 

[phinds]

When they say "Universe is expanding", it is just another (confusing) way to say "Matter is contracting".
Space is not expanding.
Too bad "expansion of the universe" is now the standard language.

Utter nonsense

 

[mathal]

Why? (And how?)
Clearly this so-called expansion has to somehow vary continuously, so that the distance between proton and electron in a hydrogen atom does not expand at the same rate as the distance between clusters of galaxies.
Does the space between Earth and Moon expand?
Between Sun and Galactic center?
Between Sun and Andromeda?

The space between the sun and Andromeda is shrinking. If it weren't for gravity the entire universe now would be like the space between galaxies with only a margial difference in density of the particles in that medium. It is the random fluctuations in particle density in early times, evolving through gravity, that produced planets, stars and galaxies and even anomalous motions such as the Milky Way and Andromeda with respect to each other.
mathal

 

[alphachapmtl]

Utter nonsense

Think about it.
If two galaxies shrinks in size without moving, they will look further apart, as measured based on their own size.
So are the galaxies shrinking or is space expanding?
Are these two exactly equivalent ways to describe the same phenomenon?
Maybe, or maybe not.
In any case, it is often useful to view things from a different perspective.

 

[The5thElement]

Can someone please clear this up?

If the space is expanding between galaxies, are the random wisps of gas and molecules also expanding? If one were to fly into such space, would you see giant hydrogen atoms flying around (at some point)?

And why is recession the same thing as expansion? Why aren't the parts of space closer to us slam into us?

 

[Spourk]

Can someone please clear this up?

If the space is expanding between galaxies, are the random wisps of gas and molecules also expanding? If one were to fly into such space, would you see giant hydrogen atoms flying around (at some point)?

And why is recession the same thing as expansion? Why aren't the parts of space closer to us slam into us?

Try not to read into the stuff about matter shrinking, I believe alphachap's posts are pretty speculative and out there, and aren't based on real science. Drakkith explained it in the best lay-terms I think. What you call the stuff in between galaxies is up to you, (it's typically called space by everyone that has a grasp of astrophysics, cosmology etc), and it is that space that is expanding/growing/increasing in size.

Here, check out this thread:

That has some more constructive information on the subject.

 

[phinds]

Are these two exactly equivalent ways to describe the same phenomenon?

Absolutely positively unequivacably NOT

 

[eXmag]

What if the universe isn't expanding at all? Its possible that it could be an illusion that it is

 

[DaveC426913]

If the space is expanding between galaxies, are the random wisps of gas and molecules also expanding? If one were to fly into such space, would you see giant hydrogen atoms flying around (at some point)?

No.

Atoms, trees, planets and even galaxies are not expanding. Theses things do not grow larger. Nor does the space between these things grow larger. These things are bound by forces much stronger than the expansion of the universe (though do not think of the expansion as a force).

The "expansion" is simply a matter of the distances between things increasing, and it only occurs where gravity and other fundamental forces are essentially zero - between galaxy clusters.

Imagine gluing a bunch of pennies to a balloon, then blowing up the balloon. You would not expect the pennies to grow larger would you? We acknowledge that the forces holding a penny together are stronger than the force created by the expansion of the balloon.

Even if you duct taped several pennies edge-to-edge (to make a 2D molecule, planet or galaxy) the expansion of the balloon is weaker than the duct tape. Several such clusters glued to a balloon would get further apart from each other, but the clusters themselves would not come apart at the seams.

 

[Spourk]

What if the universe isn't expanding at all? Its possible that it could be an illusion that it is

You might as well say modern Cosmology is an illusion too. Can you go into a little more detail on why you might think this?

 

[Drakkith]

Think about it.
If two galaxies shrinks in size without moving, they will look further apart, as measured based on their own size.

The distance between galaxies is NOT determined simply by measuring their apparent size. There are multiple ways of determining the distance to objects and they all interlock with each other to form the Cosmological Distance Ladder that let's us determine the distance between objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

So are the galaxies shrinking or is space expanding?

The distance between all objects in the universe that are not bound together by gravity or one of the other fundamental forces of nature, is increasing. That is the simplest way of describing it.

In any case, it is often useful to view things from a different perspective.

Only if that perspective isn't known to be completely speculative.

 

[phinds]

Only if that perspective isn't known to be completely speculative.

Uh ... speculative? Really? That the universe ISN'T actually expanding?

I wouldn't call it speculative, I'd call it nonsense. Drakkith, I know you're much more polite than I am but sometimes you need to call a spade a spade.

 

[Drakkith]

Uh ... speculative? Really? That the universe ISN'T actually expanding?

I wouldn't call it speculative, I'd call it nonsense. Drakkith, I know you're much more polite than I am but sometimes you need to call a spade a spade.

Maybe. But sometimes a spade is a shovel.

 

[phinds]

Maybe. But sometimes a spade is a shovel.

Check out my defintions of spade and shovel here:

http://hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/_g_S.htm

 

[Antiphon]

A little more precision in the language is needed.

1) Space is not expanding.

2) The total volume of space (a large but finite quantity) is increasing.

Yes? No?

 

[phinds]

A little more precision in the language is needed.

1) Space is not expanding.

2) The total volume of space (a large but finite quantity) is increasing.

Yes? No?

That's a very good question. The best explanation I've heard is that "space" whatever that is, if it is anything, is not itself expanding but rather the "scale factor" of non-gravitationally-bound objects is increasing. It's weird.

Alternatively, space is not expanding, the way a rubber band would expand, but rather more of it is being created somehow and this causes things to move apart unless they are gravitationally bound. Still weird.

Your statement that space is a finite quantity has absolutely no basis in known fact. It MIGHT be true but probably isn't.

 

[salvestrom]

Your statement that space is a finite quantity has absolutely no basis in known fact. It MIGHT be true but probably isn't.

The statement that space is infinite also has no basis as a known fact. The second sentence is quite biased. You also note that one potential explanation of space expansion is that new space is created. This presents a backtrapolatin of a point at which there was none. Anything that has a definite beginning cannot be infinite after a finite amount of time.

 

[phinds]

The statement that space is infinite also has no basis as a known fact. The second sentence is quite biased.

agreed on both statements. I have a personal preference for infinite and unbounded but I don't believe it to be any more suppored by facts that finite/bounded or infinite/bounded.

You also note that one potential explanation of space expansion is that new space is created. This presents a backtrapolatin of a point at which there was none. Anything that has a definite beginning cannot be infinite after a finite amount of time.

Again, I agree, but I'm in the camp that thinks it was probably infinite at the beginning and thus still infinite, just bigger. "Definite beginning" in time does NOT imply it in space, although it does seem weird to have one and not the other.

 

[Drakkith]

The statement that space is infinite also has no basis as a known fact. The second sentence is quite biased. You also note that one potential explanation of space expansion is that new space is created. This presents a backtrapolatin of a point at which there was none. Anything that has a definite beginning cannot be infinite after a finite amount of time.

A definite beginning does not mean it was finite in size at that time. An infinite sized universe will always be infinite. If it IS infinite now, then 1 picosecond after the big bang it was also infinite. Keep in mind that there is no "creation event" in the big bang theory, so saying that the universe was created there doesn't match the current model. We have no idea if anything existed before the point that our model breaks down or not.

 

[salvestrom]

A definite beginning does not mean it was finite in size at that time. An infinite sized universe will always be infinite. If it IS infinite now, then 1 picosecond after the big bang it was also infinite. Keep in mind that there is no "creation event" in the big bang theory, so saying that the universe was created there doesn't match the current model. We have no idea if anything existed before the point that our model breaks down or not.

I was using the word beginning as in, wasn't there: then it was. I should also stress it was a reference to space, not the universe. I also accept that the universe may in reality have popped into existence already infinite in size, but like phinds, I have a personal preference (the opposite of his). Technically, reheat is a creation event. :P

 

[Drakkith]

I was using the word beginning as in, wasn't there: then it was. I should also stress it was a reference to space, not the universe. I also accept that the universe may in reality have popped into existence already infinite in size, but like phinds, I have a personal preference (the opposite of his). Technically, reheat is a creation event. :P

Then I don't understand your argument. If an infinite amount of space expands or creates more space, it's still infinite. If it wasn't infinite and created more or expanded, it's still not infinite. The created volume of space that is created from another volume of space may be finite, but there are an infinite number of them.

 

[salvestrom]

Then I don't understand your argument. If an infinite amount of space expands or creates more space, it's still infinite. If it wasn't infinite and created more or expanded, it's still not infinite. The created volume of space that is created from another volume of space may be finite, but there are an infinite number of them.

Right... And I'm in favour of version two. Phinds has a preference for version one. Your last sentence just seems like an extention of the first.

 

[Drakkith]

You also note that one potential explanation of space expansion is that new space is created. This presents a backtrapolatin of a point at which there was none. Anything that has a definite beginning cannot be infinite after a finite amount of time.

Right... And I'm in favour of version two. Phinds has a preference for version one. Your last sentence just seems like an extention of the first.

I'm sorry, I don't see how your statements are adding up correctly. If space is infinite then you cannot extrapolate backwards and get 0 space. Were you assuming that space was finite when you made that post? If so, I can see that being correct.

 

[salvestrom]

I'm sorry, I don't see how your statements are adding up correctly. If space is infinite then you cannot extrapolate backwards and get 0 space. Were you assuming that space was finite when you made that post? If so, I can see that being correct.

Yes, that was the idea. The creation of new space might be worked back to a point where you simply end up with one unit of it, and then *poof*. Having an infinite universe pop into existence seems at odds with having it grow discretely - not because you can't add to infinity, just because its a dramatic switch from the creation of infinite space to just getting small packets pop in. As if one day another infinite amount of space will appear between us and Andromeda and that'll be the last we see of her. If space is infinite, it seems, on the surface, sensible to work from the point of view that it was always there. This tends to go along side the notion of spacetime. If space is infinite, time ought to be, too. And vice versa.

Not that they are inseperable, but if you're going to treat them that way, it creates automatic limits.

 

[Drakkith]

Space doesn't grow discretely as far as we know. It is a smooth expansion or growth. And according to General Relativity time and space ARE inseparable. Both are described by the same metric.