Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: LesleySchultze on 03/01/2016 01:19:45
-
Hello,
My Name is Lesley William Schultze, and I have figured out how big the universe is, sort of.
Our perception is the size we can 'see' by monitoring distant sources of radiation, in particular light and similar forms of radiation that travel over the universe very quickly, and this is the size of the universe that can be 'proven' but in reality the universe is far larger than is possible to conceive, I will explain further.
I have recently discovered that every galaxy in the universe is moving away from every other galaxy at some considerable speed, and this got me thinking big, please stay with me whilst I explain my though process in layman's terms.
If a bullet is fired from the barrel of a stationary gun at 800 Meters Per Second, (MPS) the bullet travels at 800 MPS as it falls to the ground.
If this bullet is fired from the front of a train moving at 800 MPS the total speed of this bullet will be 1600 MPS as it falls to the ground.
If fired from the rear of the train the ground speed to a stationery observer at the point where the bullet is fired is effectively zero, the start speed of the train and the travel speed of the bullet will cancel each other out, the bullet simply falls to earth.
If you apply this idea to the universe, as you get further and further from Earth, you will see the speed of light from distant galaxy's is actually getting slower and slower from our view point.
The further from Earth you get, the faster objects are moving away from us, and when distant galaxy's reach the speed of light the radiation from them will never reach us, (effective speed relevant to us being zero) so this will mark the end of the observable universe.
In more detail if you are struggling with the idea - Assuming that each galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy, the combined speed of this over vast numbers of galaxy's is staggering, think of earth to Andromeda as a value of 1, then the next galaxy is added to this, then the next and so on, over thousands of galaxy's this adds up faster and faster the further away you get and this speed will eventually reach, then exceed the speed of light, so if you get far enough away the light will in fact be traveling away from us in all directions from our view point, meaning this is as far as we will ever see unless we travel closer to the source of the radiation.
I have no formal qualifications or degree, this idea came to me in the shower and hope it is picked up by someone who can share the concept around, IDEALLY please call this Schultze's razor if you can, (because I am not dull but sharp!) and I would really appreciate any feedback or thoughts on this.
Many thanks for your time.
Lesley William Schultze.
03/01/2016
Axminster, Devon, UK
-
If you apply this idea to the universe, as you get further and further from Earth, you will see the speed of light from distant galaxy's is actually getting slower and slower from our view point.
Lesley William Schultze.
Congratulations.... You on obviously just the shear power of human analytical thought, (This is not sarcasm) have managed from limited information to very nearly almost come to the correct analysis of the situation.
What is missing from your analysis is the fact that the speed of light is always the same for all observers no matter what their state of motion.
When you shine a torch forward from the front of a train travelling at 800 MPS, the resulting light from your torch does not travel forward at the speed of light + 800 MPS, for any observer anywhere in the Universe. That light will always be seen to travel at the speed of light, no matter what your reference frame.
Similarly, if you point your torch out the back of a train traveling at 800 MPS, the resulting light will still be seen by any and all observers to be traveling at the speed of light. Not more and not less.
So you can never see the light from distant Galaxies getting slower and slower. In this Universe that is not allowed. That's why the speed of light is a constant.
Yet despite those misconceptions your analysis came to a correct conclusion, as is understood by modern popular cosmology.
The further from Earth you get, the faster objects are moving away from us, and when distant galaxy's reach the speed of light the radiation from them will never reach us, (effective speed relevant to us being zero) so this will mark the end of the observable universe.
Change that to the further away you "look" rather than the further away you "get"and that statement is considered correct. Just not by the description you gave.
You see the reason I change "get" to "look" is that the effect you describe is not attributed to Earth. It is attributed to the Universe. Where ever you may be in the Universe you will see the exact same effect centred on you. Everywhere is the centre of the Universe.
With that cleared up, what we actually see when we look at Galaxies further and further away, is not the speed of light getting slower but the frequency carried by the light getting longer and longer.
When we get to the point of Expansion that Galaxies are moving away at the speed of light, then the last of their light that can have any causal influence on our observable Universe will have a wavelength the size of our observable Universe. Whether we are capable of detecting it or not.
More likely the wavelength would have stretched out of our detectable range long before light speed separation was achieved, and that Galaxy would just fade out of existence to us.
But even the very last bit of light we ever detect from it will come to us at the speed of light. No slower.
Well that is the current accepted view, and has been for the last 100+ years.
There are no absolute truths in science. Just the closest approximations that fit all available data.
Hope that helped..
-
Hello,
My Name is Lesley William Schultze, and I have figured out how big the universe is, sort of.
Our perception is the size we can 'see' by monitoring distant sources of radiation, in particular light and similar forms of radiation that travel over the universe very quickly, and this is the size of the universe that can be 'proven' but in reality the universe is far larger than is possible to conceive, I will explain further.
I have recently discovered that every galaxy in the universe is moving away from every other galaxy at some considerable speed, and this got me thinking big, please stay with me whilst I explain my though process in layman's terms.
If a bullet is fired from the barrel of a stationary gun at 800 Meters Per Second, (MPS) the bullet travels at 800 MPS as it falls to the ground.
If this bullet is fired from the front of a train moving at 800 MPS the total speed of this bullet will be 1600 MPS as it falls to the ground.
If fired from the rear of the train the ground speed to a stationery observer at the point where the bullet is fired is effectively zero, the start speed of the train and the travel speed of the bullet will cancel each other out, the bullet simply falls to earth.
If you apply this idea to the universe, as you get further and further from Earth, you will see the speed of light from distant galaxy's is actually getting slower and slower from our view point.
The further from Earth you get, the faster objects are moving away from us, and when distant galaxy's reach the speed of light the radiation from them will never reach us, (effective speed relevant to us being zero) so this will mark the end of the observable universe.
In more detail if you are struggling with the idea - Assuming that each galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy, the combined speed of this over vast numbers of galaxy's is staggering, think of earth to Andromeda as a value of 1, then the next galaxy is added to this, then the next and so on, over thousands of galaxy's this adds up faster and faster the further away you get and this speed will eventually reach, then exceed the speed of light, so if you get far enough away the light will in fact be traveling away from us in all directions from our view point, meaning this is as far as we will ever see unless we travel closer to the source of the radiation.
I have no formal qualifications or degree, this idea came to me in the shower and hope it is picked up by someone who can share the concept around, IDEALLY please call this Schultze's razor if you can, (because I am not dull but sharp!) and I would really appreciate any feedback or thoughts on this.
Many thanks for your time.
Lesley William Schultze.
03/01/2016
Axminster, Devon, UK
Hello Lesley and welcome to the Naked science forum.
What you are trying to explain is a very simple known concept what we call the inverse square law, light decreases in magnitude the greater distance away from a light source and likewise an object at a distance will only reflect light according to magnitude of the light ''hitting'' the object.
Also in technical drawing a perspective view reaches a vanishing point where the object is beyond our visual boundary.
The size of the Universe and the size of the visual Universe can be related differently , our visual boundary of the Universe is an acting firmament until we develop the technology to travel deeper into space.
Hope this helps
Steve.
-
If you apply this idea to the universe, as you get further and further from Earth, you will see the speed of light from distant galaxy's is actually getting slower and slower from our view point.
Lesley William Schultze.
Congratulations.... You on obviously just the shear power of human analytical thought, (This is not sarcasm) have managed from limited information to very nearly almost come to the correct analysis of the situation.
What is missing from your analysis is the fact that the speed of light is always the same for all observers no matter what their state of motion.
When you shine a torch forward from the front of a train travelling at 800 MPS, the resulting light from your torch does not travel forward at the speed of light + 800 MPS, for any observer anywhere in the Universe. That light will always be seen to travel at the speed of light, no matter what your reference frame.
Similarly, if you point your torch out the back of a train traveling at 800 MPS, the resulting light will still be seen by any and all observers to be traveling at the speed of light. Not more and not less.
So you can never see the light from distant Galaxies getting slower and slower. In this Universe that is not allowed. That's why the speed of light is a constant.
Yet despite those misconceptions your analysis came to a correct conclusion, as is understood by modern popular cosmology.
The further from Earth you get, the faster objects are moving away from us, and when distant galaxy's reach the speed of light the radiation from them will never reach us, (effective speed relevant to us being zero) so this will mark the end of the observable universe.
Change that to the further away you "look" rather than the further away you "get"and that statement is considered correct. Just not by the description you gave.
You see the reason I change "get" to "look" is that the effect you describe is not attributed to Earth. It is attributed to the Universe. Where ever you may be in the Universe you will see the exact same effect centred on you. Everywhere is the centre of the Universe.
With that cleared up, what we actually see when we look at Galaxies further and further away, is not the speed of light getting slower but the frequency carried by the light getting longer and longer.
When we get to the point of Expansion that Galaxies are moving away at the speed of light, then the last of their light that can have any causal influence on our observable Universe will have a wavelength the size of our observable Universe. Whether we are capable of detecting it or not.
More likely the wavelength would have stretched out of our detectable range long before light speed separation was achieved, and that Galaxy would just fade out of existence to us.
But even the very last bit of light we ever detect from it will come to us at the speed of light. No slower.
Well that is the current accepted view, and has been for the last 100+ years.
There are no absolute truths in science. Just the closest approximations that fit all available data.
Hope that helped..
That will just confuse people flow,
A train travelling at 100 mph in the day time, shine a flash light out of the front window, I do not observe light shining out into space, I observe the light travelling at 100 mph. I observe viewing a horizontal of the train travelling left to right, I observe the light travels a vertical to me of the train, stop added make believe.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
.....I would really appreciate any feedback or thoughts on this.
Lesley, welcome to the forum.
May I second Spaceflow's comment on your ability to get close to the truth. In fact your view would have been shared by Galileo and Newton because it wasn't until the early 1900s that the constancy of the speed of light was discovered.
You will find on this forum a wide range of understanding of physics, some folks understand it, others write garbage. However, I don't think anyone could better Spaceflow's succinct answer to your post.
PS - That doesn't mean I agree with everything he writes [;)]
-
PS - That doesn't mean I agree with everything he writes
It would be a very boring world if all men thought the same.
As an indian chief was once quoted;
"If all braves were the same,
They would all want my squaw" :)
-
Hi all, many thanks for your thoughts on this, amazed anyone read it to be honest.
Back to basics, please indulge me and point out if I am wrong.
So as I understand it, sound is a wavelength, (compression waves) and can be compressed as it approaches, then correct as it passes and finally lengthened as it moves away - know as the Doppler effect and is well documented.
If moving at the speed of sound, the observer will not be able to hear you approach, but will hear a boom as you pass as all the compressed sound waves hit you at once, then a lengthened sound wave as you move away.
This basic wave structure is the same in all known waves that I can think of, the amplitude of the wave will reduce over distance, (for example sound volume reduction, pitch remains the same if source and destination are static) but the length of each wave will be the same at the source until this is no longer detectable.
As I understand from your comments light and all other forms of radiation in space do not follow the same rules, I do not understand why this is unfortunately so sorry for that, the Doppler effect should surely effect the light waves as much as it does a sound wave?
If a train was traveling at the speed of light towards you with a light on the front, a light on the side and a light on the rear you would not see the train approach, you would see the side light as it passed then see the rear light as normal? And and if so why?
If the wavelength from the rear of the train is longer, (assuming it is visible at all) then does the light on the back of the train appear as a different color - by extension actual radiation from the rear of a very fast moving star with a longer wavelength have entirely different properties possibly from light from the front or sides?
Additionally, if the speed of light is fixed and cannot be compressed or stretched what happens to all the build up of light at the front of the train - an ocular / solar boom at some point if going faster than the light speed as the train passes you?
My mind tells me that the lights on the train should act the same way as a bullet fired or a sound wave, (twice the speed at the front, zero at the rear and normal from the side as it passes) but all seem to say that light has its own laws and its speed is constant, appearing as if from a static object where ever it is emitted from in relation to an observer regardless of the speed of the object that made the light.
I hope that this does not seem like I am being picky but it would seem to me that light from the rear of the train would actually have to travel twice the speed of light to achieve light speed in a rear direction, the same as the bullet would need to have a muzzle velocity of 1600 MPS to reach 800 MPS relative to the observer.
If this is the case, then all of the current thoughts on the universe structure, density, spacing and so on is potentially incorrect as all our current thinking based on the fact that light is a constant speed.
On a tangent - could this also explain why no light escapes a black hole, the light is sucked in at equal or higher than light speed so the light remains static or trapped or possibly even moves backwards through space towards the black hole, and never escapes the gravity - so this is an example of light not moving at light speed relevant to an observer, even though the light is moving at light speed from the point of view of the light itself, from the point of the black hole it is stationery and invisible.
Even larger tangent a black hole could simply be a really massive star rather than the huge vacuum cleaner that we think of, with so much gravity no energy can actually escape? The light from the star and all the energy in the star remain trapped forever.
Again, thoughts are welcome by all as my brain is starting to hurt at this point from trying to articulate the idea in a way that does not sound like the ravings of an idiot.
Many Thanks, Lesley.
-
If a train was traveling at the speed of light towards you with a light on the front, a light on the side and a light on the rear you would not see the train approach, you would see the side light as it passed then see the rear light as normal? And and if so why?
Ok. First of all nothing that has mass associated with it can travel at the speed of light. Only light can do that as it has no mass associated with it.
Second, with the speed of light being a constant for all observers, there are some unavoidable consequences.
We calculate speed by distance over time. Now picture that equation if speed can't be varied. How do you differentiate between different points of view if speed is the same for everyone?
This is the question that Einstein struggled with and what ended up leading him to the Special Theory of Relativity.
If speed is constant, then distance and time can not be.
A train can not be seen to be traveling at the speed of light towards you or in any other direction. So a beam of light emanating from the front of that train will always be seen before a train can get to you.
Space and time are variable. Speed of light is not.
Two observers in relative motion as long as they are causally connected, will always agree on the sequence that events happen but will not agree on the timing.
If the wavelength from the rear of the train is longer, (assuming it is visible at all) then does the light on the back of the train appear as a different color - by extension actual radiation from the rear of a very fast moving star with a longer wavelength have entirely different properties possibly from light from the front or sides?
Yes. The wavelength of something moving away from you is doppler shifted to longer wavelengths so it does appear as a different colour. We call that red shift as the perceived colour moves towards the red end of our visual spectrum. Of course the effect covers the entire spectrum not just the humanly visible. Similarly light from a source moving towards us we say it is blue shifted as the perceived colours shift to the blue end of the spectrum. Looking at distant objects we can measure the speed at which they are moving towards or away from us by measuring how far the spectrum has moved one way or the other and comparing that to the speed of light.
This does not mean that the light has entirely different properties, only that the characteristic properties contained in the light have doppler shifted and we are receiving them at a different frequency to the one they were emitted at.
Additionally, if the speed of light is fixed and cannot be compressed or stretched what happens to all the build up of light at the front of the train - an ocular / solar boom at some point if going faster than the light speed as the train passes you?
Again the train can not be seen to travel at the speed of light so you never have that situation.
But because the speed of light can not be anything other than the speed of light does in no way mean that light can not be compressed or stretched. It just means that it can't be sped up or slowed down. Distance and time (Spacetime) will always adjust to make sure this is so.My mind tells me that the lights on the train should act the same way as a bullet fired or a sound wave, (twice the speed at the front, zero at the rear and normal from the side as it passes) but all seem to say that light has its own laws and its speed is constant, appearing as if from a static object where ever it is emitted from in relation to an observer regardless of the speed of the object that made the light.
Your mind is of course telling you what you find intuitive. The same for the rest of us. We have evolved and exist so far from a reality that operates at relativistic speeds that we have nothing in our makeup to prepare us to relate to such a reality. You are not alone.
Take comfort in the fact that the calculations that you made with a train and a bullet where not accurate either.
They were only newtonian approximations that are close enough for our everyday purposes.On a tangent - could this also explain why no light escapes a black hole, the light is sucked in at equal or higher than light speed so the light remains static or trapped or possibly even moves backwards through space towards the black hole, and never escapes the gravity - so this is an example of light not moving at light speed relevant to an observer, even though the light is moving at light speed from the point of view of the light itself, from the point of the black hole it is stationery and invisible.
A bit out of left field but have a read through my personal pet theory that goes some way of explaining light and black holes.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.0
-
So as I understand it, sound is a wavelength, (compression waves) and can be compressed as it approaches, then correct as it passes and finally lengthened as it moves away - know as the Doppler effect and is well documented. yes
This basic wave structure is the same in all known waves that I can think of, the amplitude of the wave will reduce over distance, (for example sound volume reduction, pitch remains the same if source and destination are static) but the length of each wave will be the same at the source until this is no longer detectable. yes
As I understand from your comments light and all other forms of radiation in space do not follow the same rules, no
If a train was traveling at the speed of light towards you with a light on the front, a light on the side and a light on the rear you would not see the train approach, you would see the side light as it passed then see the rear light as normal? And and if so why? you only see light that directly comes to you
If the wavelength from the rear of the train is longer, (assuming it is visible at all) then does the light on the back of the train appear as a different color - by extension actual radiation from the rear of a very fast moving star with a longer wavelength have entirely different properties possibly from light from the front or sides?only if the train is travelling away from you and the light source is directly behind you.
If this is the case, then all of the current thoughts on the universe structure, density, spacing and so on is potentially incorrect as all our current thinking based on the fact that light is a constant speed. light is a constant speed but a variable wave
''I hope that this does not seem like I am being picky but it would seem to me that light from the rear of the train would actually have to travel twice the speed of light to achieve light speed in a rear direction, the same as the bullet would need to have a muzzle velocity of 1600 MPS to reach 800 MPS relative to the observer. ''
Any velocity faster than light or near the speed of light, is said to stretch light, in essence out running the light stretching the force of the light. The easy way is to imagine a cloud as a filter that filters and compresses the light propagating through it, if the cloud was to move directly away from the light source at speed X , the cloud would become less grey.
-
OK super stuff.
And if we are also in motion away from the source of the lightr it will be streatched even further, making a yet longer wave length and reducing the power of the light, (fewer waves hit per second = less power, a bit like revs on a car engine) so far so good.
My issue is that if all the points in the universe are moving away from all the other points at some speed, eventually, (maths again cannot lie as far as I know) if enough material existed the actual speed of the matter would have to exceed the speed of light for this rule to continue working.
To explain further, if you had 10 galaxy's in a line, each evenly spaced and each moving away from each other at 10 miles per hour, you would see from left to right, (assuming the left galaxy is static in space for ease of maths, and my maths may be wrong here by the way but it shows the idea I hope) as below:
0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100
As you can see, if this carried on over millions of galaxy's your speed will add up to a number that would inevitably reach light speed, and keep going?
This would be impossible by all accounts, but the maths points to it being likely.
Again, sorry I am no genius, so if this seems daft please explain.
Again, on a tangent the below:
I am also lead to believe that matter and energy are interchangeable - eg. food as a real world example everyone can relate to, if this is the case does matter start to be light at this point?
If so could we move matter as light, then turn it back into matter when we slow it down again? Mr Spock may have a working example of this somewhere I hope, seen it on the TV so it must be true.
Many Thanks for your help by the way The Box, Space Flow and Colin2B.
Kind Regards,
Lesley.
-
My issue is that if all the points in the universe are moving away from all the other points at some speed, eventually, (maths again cannot lie as far as I know) if enough material existed the actual speed of the matter would have to exceed the speed of light for this rule to continue working.
To explain further, if you had 10 galaxy's in a line, each evenly spaced and each moving away from each other at 10 miles per hour, you would see from left to right, (assuming the left galaxy is static in space for ease of maths, and my maths may be wrong here by the way but it shows the idea I hope) as below:
0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100
As you can see, if this carried on over millions of galaxy's your speed will add up to a number that would inevitably reach light speed, and keep going?
This would be impossible by all accounts, but the maths points to it being likely.
Again there is nothing wrong with your logic or the mathematics.
Unfortunately it hinges on just one false assumption. You have assumed that something made of matter (like Galaxies) is actually moving through space away from other galaxies.
There are two defined kind of movements so far in the Universe.
Peculiar movement, describes movement of matter through space. This is the kind of movement that you are assuming to apply to expansion.
Expansion Movement, describes movement of the space itself through the creation of more space.
In this type of movement, matter does not actually move. More space is created in-between any two points.
You see peculiar movement is a local observation and can be in any direction. Peculiar movement being the movement of matter through space can not travel at the speed of light.
Expansion movement being movement because of the creation of more space does not have such restrictions.
There can apparently always be more and more space to seperate matter. Without any limit.
But matter itself is not moving.
-
Interesting, in this case space is constantly being created from nothing, but as space is simply space with no matter in it it is not being created at all, simply coming into existence to fill the gap?
Or not to fill the gap but to create distance I guess, but to what end?
If the universe is indeed a space that has no limits, how much new 'space' can be created, as dark matter is also being made I assume to fill the gaps too.
So the idea of a 'big bang theory' is a bit old then, should we be thinking more of 'the great diffusion theory' as the matter in the universe attempts to evenly distribute into the space of the universe?
I don't think we can answer all the questions yet, but all the material in the universe had to come from somewhere, why not simply coming into existence to fill a gap, makes as much sense as any other idea I have read that did not involve a god or similar creator to explain the hard questions.
Also, if more space is simply being created between galaxy's then are they being pushed apart by this, or is the density of the space between the galaxy's getting more dense?
If the galaxy's are not moving at all, then how can the distance between them be ever increasing unless space is somehow being compressed.
I am struggling with the concept, it goes against logic, but agree that this seems to be the current idea of how this works.
-
I am struggling with the concept, it goes against logic, but agree that this seems to be the current idea of how this works.
Ok having got this far with no glitches, I am now admiring the elasticity displayed by your mind.
You have absorbed and quickly worked out the consequences of concepts that some never get. And you did this within one thread. Very impressive.
You correctly deduced that if more space is being created between Galaxies than they are either being pushed apart, or the density of space between them is increasing.
The current accepted model tells us that space is being created today at aprox 70 Km per second per megaparcec.
This increases the distance between any two distant points without the distant points having to do any moving within the spacetime they occupy. Now this may sound like a substantial number but a Mpc is 3.26 million lightyears and one lightyear is almost 10 trillion kilometers.
If you break it down a bit, space is expanding at a rate of 21.46mm/sec/lightyear. A little bit over two centimeters each second, over a distance of 10 trillion kilometers.
Our Milkyway is 100,000 lightyears across. So if it was expanding, it would only be at a rate of 2,15km/sec. Ok, but a second is not much, how about a full year? For a full year it would expand 67,802,400km. That sounds like a lot, but its not even halfway from Earth to the Sun. So you see the effect over short distances is tiny.
Now comes the next bit of current accepted theory;
This Universal expansion does not happen inside a gravity bound system. That I'm sure you will quickly deduce, means that the places in the Universe that have Matter are staying the same or getting denser and the places in the Universe that have very little matter are where the Universal expansion is really happening. They are called voids and they are growing at an accelerated rate. We are close to the edge of one of the biggest ones in our observable Universe but moving in the opposite direction.
You asked "to what end". What an excellent question; There may somewhere be an official answer to that question but I have never come across it. All I can offer is my own personal view.
For at least two and a half thousand years Humanity has known about the constituents of reality. Included in this knowledge was the four main states of matter. Back then they were taught as Earth, Water, Wind and Fire. That in no way contradicts the modern view of Solid, Liquid, Gas and Plasma. The big difference was the part of physical nature, that they considered not of any of those, because although physical in nature it was not material. This was considered as the first physical part of reality. The aether. Apparently represented by a dodecahedron as everything was somehow seen to be related to geometry. Now in two and a half thousand years there have been many attempts to pin down by correct description this aether. None were close enough at any stage to produce accurately predictive models. The Michelson/Morley experiments with some sort of static aether theory being a prime example.
Then along comes Albert Einstein. We now have a spacetime. It can be described by physical coordinates so has physical properties. But heaven forbid that you should think of it as another definition of the aether. It can apparently be manipulated by matter. It supposedly can be curved, twisted, compressed and expanded. But still we should not confuse it as another definition of the Aether. And it has a brand new quality. Well brand new 100 years ago. It is TIME.
That's right space is time and time is space. They are one and the same thing.
We are all taught that today. But have we really considered what that means?
We have as our most accepted Universal theory the Big Bang.
We can not talk about before the beginning because there can be no before time. We can only scientifically relate from the first moment onwards.
Once that first moment had happened, we had a situation where every smallest subdivision of matter that is part of the entire Universe, now had one smallest possible subdivision of space separating it from every other smallest subdivision of matter.
The Universe that is one planck length of time old is already twice as big as it can't be described without that happening.
Those smallest subdivisions of matter that I will assume are quarks together with the time passing so making more space available to to vibrate make an animated Universe. Matter on it's own can not do it and time on it's own has no meaning.
So for every moment that passed there was now twice as much space as there was before. None of the quarks need have moved from where they found themselves in that first moment but after by our reckoning 13.82 Billion years that time translates into a hell of a lot of space. And whoever heard of the existence of space that does not exist between matter.
Albert Einstein by redefining aether to his interpretation of "Timespace" answers your question "to what end?".
So the Universe can keep expanding in time. By anyone's definition of time from one moment to the next. If you have more time then there must be more space than before.
As I said above this is my personal way of understanding all this and not necessarily the official view. If there is an official view that attempts your question.
Hope that didn't confuse you more...
-
You have assumed that something made of matter (like Galaxies) is actually moving through space away from other galaxies.
There are two defined kind of movements so far in the Universe.
and he assumed right , space is not expanding, space expanding is against any logic or rational thought and more a fairy tale. Space itself has nothing to expand unless you can describe an Aether?
Space itself expanding is the biggest wrong in science and the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard in my life.
-
You correctly deduced that if more space is being created between Galaxies than they are either being pushed apart, or the density of space between them is increasing.
And when does Harry Potter make an appearance in this fairy tale. Not only does science persist in the lie that space is expanding, it also insists that beyond this space is nothing including time itself. Logically insane.
added- space/dark energy is contracting, it is the light that is expanding....red shift shows light expanding it does not show space expanding.
-
Space itself has nothing to expand
Then how can it bend? If it can bend, it can stretch, it can compress. Gravity Probe B proved space does distort, even to the extent that the spin of the earth drags space behind it. I don't know why links aren't allowed here as links support statements.
-
I don't know why links aren't allowed here as links support statements.
I believe it is a condition that is imposed on new members to stop trolls.
You have to get a number of posts or comments under your belt before links are available to you.
Then how can it bend? If it can bend, it can stretch, it can compress. Gravity Probe B proved space does distort, even to the extent that the spin of the earth drags space behind it.
Although very good questions, and ones I totally agree with, you have to understand that a lot of people are on sites like these because for one reason or another they do not agree with orthodox beliefs and this is a way to air their alternatives. I myself am here for just such reasons. Where I will bow to observational evidence, you will come across a huge range of opinions ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime.
It's part of the course.
-
So for every moment that passed there was now twice as much space as there was before. None of the quarks need have moved from where they found themselves in that first moment but after by our reckoning 13.82 Billion years that time translates into a hell of a lot of space. And whoever heard of the existence of space that does not exist between matter.
I remember reading about a theory a few years back originated by a fellow named Mark McCutcheon where he claimed that the acceleration of gravity was produced by this expansion. Does your theory recognize this expansion as a possible cause for gravity?
-
I remember reading about a theory a few years back originated by a fellow named Mark McCutcheon where he claimed that the acceleration of gravity was produced by this expansion. Does your theory recognize this expansion as a possible cause for gravity?
Ethos, my view of the mechanism that results in what we describe as gravity, acts exactly opposite to this spacetime creation mechanism. Spacetime flows into matter almost like a no viscosity fluid.
Fundamental particles and through them the structures they create act as spacetime consumers. Their basic input, the very thing they require to be animate is spacetime. Matter needs space to move. All matter moves. There is no way within physics as we know it to actually reach absolute 0 K. So matter uses up spacetime.
This is why observations do not show expansion anywhere there is concentrations of matter. Universal Expansion is only observed in the voids where much matter is not.
The thing is creation of spacetime is controlled by time. The faster time can run the more space will be created. Where there is concentrations of matter there is more motion so time runs slower relative to the voids where there is very little matter at very cold temperatures. There is a lot more time there relatively speaking. The Voids and anything matter they contain are ageing a lot faster than what we refer to as the passage of time. Therefore the voids are creating spacetime faster than matter dense regions. At the same time there is less matter there to use the space.
Universal Accelerated expansion is the logical outcome.
You can even see this effect locally to a point. You can't see any local expansion, but you can see local correlation between density of environment and clock rates.
Just look at the Milky Way's satellite galaxies and clusters. You will notice a general trend towards least dense are oldest. They have basically aged faster than us in the Galaxy. Their clocks are running a lot faster than ours. and that's only next door. It's very different in the voids.
-
Sorry have been buy this week so not checked the messages - WOW, a lot of thoughts here by the way, all make me think.
1: If space, dark matter and so on is being created in the voids, what is it being created out of?
You cannot get something from nothing after all - and how can this force of nothing push the universe apart?
2: If space time is simply the flow towards gravity and matter, where does this go, and come from? And is it consumed, transferred or recycled into new space time or what?
3: If the universe is expanding only in matter free areas such as the voids between galaxy's, and the areas with gravity and matter are virtually unaffected, do we end up with an increasingly spread out universe? If so eventually it will be a cold and empty place, all matter in the universe will be evenly distributed?
My thoughts on this are that everything in nature, (that I have observed) is looking for balance, (osmosis, electrical discharge, nuclear reactions ending in noble gas or lead for example, oxidation of metals, burning of fuels and so on all bring you closer to being inert) these are all examples of things that are non reactive and basically do nothing in the known world, I assume all matter will eventually reach this point.
So, is the expansion simply the universe trying to balance the equation perhaps?
Lastly, is the universe actually expanding in all directions at the same time, as I have read some posts that say it may not be, if so we really have no clue whats going on, unless we are simply moving through an infinite space forever aimlessly.
Either war, I am assured that I no longer am a factor in the grand scheme of things, (thinking VERY big here) so we may never be able to figure this one out in my lifetime.
I do agree that if you have more gravity and so as a rule more matter time will run slower.
I agree that light moves at a constant speed, the only variation being the wavelength.
Given the 2 points above, how does a black hole suck light in / prevent it from escaping the gravity, please clarify as in my mind this means the light either moves so slowly we cannot see it, remains static forever or moves backwards relevant to our space time, but at light speed in its own space time 'bubble' .
With this in mind, is gravity a brake to space times expansion?
I feel my knowledge is failing at this point as the basics of existence on earth quickly stop working when you think bigger, and as nothing is easy to categorically prove given the scale of the question, (hence the forum and all your posts I guess) it will be a 'best guess theory' that will explain all the little exceptions.
Personal thought, the big bang is not possible as the universe would all be sourced from a central point, so will all be moving from that location, (explosion happens, stuff moves away from that point) and as this is not the case the words 'big bang' may need to be revised to 'the event' to avoid confusion.
Many Thanks all, as normal please feel free to hammer the lumps out of my road.
Lesley.
-
Lesley, Any answers or explanations I have previously given you before this all reflected the accepted views of our commonly accepted Universal models.
However, the questions you are asking in your last post, are the same questions that all of science is currently struggling with. As such there is no clear consensus on the appropriate answers.
As you rightly pointed out that is part of the motivation for these very forums. Where there is doubt, there is a door open for ideas of all sorts.
There is a huge variety of conflicting answers to choose from. However I can only give you mine.
1: If space, dark matter and so on is being created in the voids, what is it being created out of?
You cannot get something from nothing after all - and how can this force of nothing push the universe apart?
First we have to differentiate between "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy".
Dark Matter if it exists at all, would be part of the Matter/Energy budget of the Universe and as such would be a conserved quality. It could neither be made or destroyed. You can not get something from nothing as you say.
On the other hand, what is referred to as "Dark Energy" is the creation of more nothing that stands in-between the somethings.
It is more Timespace. And is simply a geometric result of the passage of time.
When the Universe was young, not much time existed, so Time and Space being one and the same thing, we can rightfully say that the Universe was smaller. As more Time passes, so there has to correspondingly be more Space again because they are one and the same thing, so the Universe is growing bigger. It is simply the geometry that the arrow of time dictates.
The more Time that passes the more Space there has to be. It can not be otherwise.
So where time is running faster, (the Voids) Space is correspondingly being created faster.
2: If space time is simply the flow towards gravity and matter, where does this go, and come from? And is it consumed, transferred or recycled into new space time or what?
Again there is no scientific consensus on any of this, so I can only answer it in my own view.
The answer that I would give is far too long to put down here so here is a link to it;
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.75 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.75)
3: If the universe is expanding only in matter free areas such as the voids between galaxy's, and the areas with gravity and matter are virtually unaffected, do we end up with an increasingly spread out universe? If so eventually it will be a cold and empty place, all matter in the universe will be evenly distributed?
My thoughts on this are that everything in nature, (that I have observed) is looking for balance, (osmosis, electrical discharge, nuclear reactions ending in noble gas or lead for example, oxidation of metals, burning of fuels and so on all bring you closer to being inert) these are all examples of things that are non reactive and basically do nothing in the known world, I assume all matter will eventually reach this point.
So, is the expansion simply the universe trying to balance the equation perhaps?
One of the common scientific views is exactly what you say. However, there has been and continues to be studies that are 3D mapping our observable Universe and they are painting a different picture entirely.
Yes the average density of the Universe always has been and continues to go down. The mathematics of that can not be denied. Matter is conserved so the amount remains the same. Time is not conserved as it continually moves forward. So for every moment that passes anywhere and however you wish to measure it, there is correspondingly more Space then there was before. Simple math, same amount of Matter, in more Space, "Average" density has to go down.
The important factor in that equation is the word "average".
What observation is showing us is that places of Matter are in fact getting denser. Places of no matter (Voids) are in fact getting less dense. So average is not a good representation of reality. Check this bit of mapping out;
https://www.facebook.com/595088680534432/photos/a.999377016772261.1073741826.595088680534432/999376806772282/?type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/595088680534432/photos/a.999377016772261.1073741826.595088680534432/999376806772282/?type=3&theater)
Lastly, is the universe actually expanding in all directions at the same time, as I have read some posts that say it may not be, if so we really have no clue whats going on, unless we are simply moving through an infinite space forever aimlessly.
Either war, I am assured that I no longer am a factor in the grand scheme of things, (thinking VERY big here) so we may never be able to figure this one out in my lifetime.
I do agree that if you have more gravity and so as a rule more matter time will run slower.
I agree that light moves at a constant speed, the only variation being the wavelength.
Given the 2 points above, how does a black hole suck light in / prevent it from escaping the gravity, please clarify as in my mind this means the light either moves so slowly we cannot see it, remains static forever or moves backwards relevant to our space time, but at light speed in its own space time 'bubble' .
With this in mind, is gravity a brake to space times expansion?
I'm hoping that the link I posted to "Space Flow Theory" above has given you one way that your questions may be answered. Is it the real way things work? That I can't answer. There are many other Hypotheses and theories. That one is my own. Make of it what you will.
Personal thought, the big bang is not possible as the universe would all be sourced from a central point, so will all be moving from that location, (explosion happens, stuff moves away from that point) and as this is not the case the words 'big bang' may need to be revised to 'the event' to avoid confusion.
You are making an anthropomorphically common mistake of taking the words "Big Bang" and visualising an explosion. The "Big Bang" if it is a real representation of what happened was and is a lot more subtle than that.
For a start, the view that is sometimes put forward of a singularity, is a mathematical one, but is not and never can be a scientific one. Science just by the principles it operates and defines itself, can never have anything to say about any question that tries to address a concept of before time. Such things belong in other human fields of understanding.
Science therefore starts it's description of the Universe after the first moment of time has happened. Planck time 1.
At this point, every fundamental particle that exists in all the Universe, already has one unit of Space separating it from every other fundamental particle. The Universe when science can start to describe it is already "HUGE".
So from this planck moment 1 start, we move to planck time 2. There are now 2 planck units of Space separating every fundamental particle from every other. Planck moment 100, there are now 100 planck units of Space separating every Fundamental particle from every other. All of this is making more space that these particles can vibrate, rotate, move in. we are describing an animated rapidly expanding Universe. No particle has actually had to move away from where science found it at that first instance of existence, yet for every tick of every clock that can exist, there is the equivalent of that much more space separating one from the rest.
Every particle remains in the centre for ever. No matter how much the Universal expansion separates them all.
Therefore everywhere was is and always will be the centre of the Universe. Of course if that was all there was to it then we would not have the complex Universe we have now. It would just be a homogeneous soup of Fundamental particles with ever more space between them.
Fundamental particles though have some other features. They come into play when enough space comes into existence. They are the carriers of Force. A force that has different manifestations, that are very Space dependent. They first split this Force into the "Strong" and "Electroweak" Force, at the point that enough space has become available through the passage of enough time, for structure to appear in the form of "Neutrons".
From that point enough time has to pass to create enough Space so that the "Electroweak" force can be further split into the "Electromagnetic" and the "Weak" forces. This happens when the Space is available for an Electron to be separated from the Neutron dividing it into that electron, a Neutrino, and the remainder of the Neutron, Now a charged particle called a Proton. To give you an idea of the proportions involved, if this proton was the size of a pea, there would have to exist a football field's worth of space for this division to happen.
All this activity sets up anisotropies in the distribution of matter. We no longer have the even distribution we started with. The initial release of electrons forming the first Atoms doesn't last as the pressures and temperatures of this dense environment ionises everything. They don't get to recombine again for 380,000 years by our reckoning of time.
I notice I've run off on a tangent from your question so I should stop now.
Hope that helps...
-
I have read your space flow theory, and I cannot find a fault with it to be honest, it is impossible to disprove as it behaves the same as gravity, with 'force' aspect being replaced by 'space flow'
There is 1 small issue however with your elevator idea, if there were 2 earths in orbit around one another, you could in theory use this to move material between the 2 worlds like an elevator - but only if your start point was the mid point between the 2 planets or you would simply fall back to the closest world.
If all the universe matter is consuming space time, and this pulls matter together as it 'eats up' all the space time between the 2 galaxy's, (demand and consumption is greater than the supply) I assume eventually all the material in the universe will group into larger and larger groups, eventually being only a handful of exceptionally dense and space time hungry black holes, these will then pull together over billions of years making all the matter in the universe into 1 big ball? If so at this point do you get another 'big bang' where it all kicks off again?
As matter and energy are linked, cannot be destroyed or have the total amount altered, this process could go on without end I guess, if so this may not be the first universe existing in the state that we know it.
If the material in the universe has not moved, (space between increased, but every part of matter is exactly where, (more or less) it was to begin with, the grouping of matter is simply the the lack of space time supply (we wrongly assume this is attraction of matter or gravity to other matter or gravity) as we are unable to think outside of our box, (what we can see, touch and so on) so space is being created by the lack of matter, and destroyed by matter as it flows towards it.
By extension - rather comically - if this is correct then Issac Newton's apple was actually thrown at him by space time, rather than falling on him.
The universe is a rough place after all I guess.
I agree the 'average density of matter' is a poor way to think - the density universe wide will drop, but locally the density will increase as galaxy's bump into each other and grow larger over time.
Slightly off kilter here too, If the universe originally occupied a far smaller space, light being a constant we should be able to see far further back in time as the matter would have origionally been far closer to us, (less space existed, so light would have got here far sooner, however the high levels of matter and 'gravity' would slow space time to almost a stand still) so the view we have of light is really what space time allows us to observe, nothing more than this.
I think my thread is now dead, as we are so far off subject now its insane.
One point remains however that I am still not clear on - faster than light travel.
If you are moving through a perfect vacuum with no gravity or other influence acting on you, then in theory you should be able to speed up indefinitely as there will be no resistance to counter this - so why would you be limited to light speed?
Just to be picky too - when posting you need to answer a question, (answer is blue or coffee generally if your having issues with it) but I am uncomfortable with the answer blue, this is not entirely correct, when I first posted I did not type blue, I typed clear and was apparently wrong.
Normally would let it go, but this is a science based discussion site, and it did make me chuckle.
Been fun so far however!
Lesley.
-
If all the universe matter is consuming space time, and this pulls matter together as it 'eats up' all the space time between the 2 galaxy's, (demand and consumption is greater than the supply) I assume eventually all the material in the universe will group into larger and larger groups, eventually being only a handful of exceptionally dense and space time hungry black holes, these will then pull together over billions of years making all the matter in the universe into 1 big ball? If so at this point do you get another 'big bang' where it all kicks off again?
Yet again you display an amazing ability and open mind when presented with new concepts.
And your follow up deductive ability I find quick and to me very logical as you arrive at similar conclusions to my own.
What you describe is what I tried to present in this post;
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1016839998359296&id=595088680534432&pnref=story (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1016839998359296&id=595088680534432&pnref=story)
-
By extension - rather comically - if this is correct then Issac Newton's apple was actually thrown at him by space time, rather than falling on him.
Funny you should put it that way...
That's exactly what Newton's intuition told him as well:
"Isaac Newton (1675) and Bernhard Riemann (1853) argued that aether streams carry all bodies to each other. Newton (1717) and Leonhard Euler (1760) proposed a model, in which the aether loses density near the masses, leading to a net force directing to the bodies."
Unfortunately for Newton the time was not right for that description. There was at that time no knowledge of the Quantum world and he had no way of knowing what to do with all this aether flowing into all matter.
He abandoned his intuitive description of Gravity and just went with the force description as he could justify that with mathematics.
Deep down though I believe he always knew how that force was made manifest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory
-
One point remains however that I am still not clear on - faster than light travel.
If you are moving through a perfect vacuum with no gravity or other influence acting on you, then in theory you should be able to speed up indefinitely as there will be no resistance to counter this - so why would you be limited to light speed?
Again, you ask very good questions. There are a variety of ways to answer that as everything in this Universe is relative.
Can you travel faster than light is not the same as is the speed of light constant for all observers.
Everything needs a frame of reference. We have a Universal constant that says that the speed of light through a medium will be the same for every reference frame.
Let me bring all that into the real world.
Say as a thought experiment you are 18 years old today on planet Earth. You have the necessary access to technology that will allow you to do whatever today's physics say's is possible.
You decide you want to spend your 21st birthday on planet Soda which happens to be co-moving with the Earth 100 Million light years away. Could you travel that distance in 3 years without going faster than light? Of course not. Yet physics tells us that this very thing is entirely possible.
You simply jump into your spaceship, you tell your computer navigator your destination and tell it to accelerate at 9.81 meters per sec per sec until it achieves a speed relative to Earth of 0.9999999999999999 c. This should take just under a year of Earth time, slightly under that your time.
You then cruise in free-fall for a year of your time before you accelerate in the opposite direction (Decelerate) at 9.81 m/s/s for just under a year arriving on planet Soda in plenty of time to organise a local party.
Now this is all within the laws of physics and relativity as we currently understand it.
If anyone happened to somehow keep track of your journey from Earth, they would have seen you traveling for a little over 100,000,000 years.
But what is that to you?
You started your journey from Earth to a destination 100 million light years away, and when you completed your journey and look at the Earth it is 100 million light years away. How is that not traveling faster than light within your own continuous 3 year reference frame?
Personally, you are not limited to light speed. You are not allowed to be "seen" traveling faster than light by any observer including yourself. The rest of the Universe will always change to make it so. 100,000,000 light years is only that while on Earth or Soda. On the spaceship, as energy is applied the universe in front of you contracts to no longer appear as far away. As more energy is added by acceleration all distances being relative to speed shorten. You apply energy in the opposite direction to make them lengthen again and match reference frames.
Any way you look at it you can always achieve the result of faster than light travel, but you can never be observed doing it.
It's a crazy Universe.
It has been a very enjoyable interaction for me as well..
Thank you.
-
I assume eventually all the material in the universe will group into larger and larger groups, eventually being only a handful of exceptionally dense and space time hungry black holes, these will then pull together over billions of years making all the matter in the universe into 1 big ball? If so at this point do you get another 'big bang' where it all kicks off again?
This is a similar view to the one I have about what some call a cyclical universe. I do suggest one variation to this theme however. I suspect that there exists a physical limit to the size that a black hole can grow to. If for example, this limit is less than the total mass energy of what we presently observe as our universe, and similar such "smaller bangs" have occurred over unimaginable great lengths of time, we would not be able to detect any difference from the so-called "Big Bang" physicists now hold as the standard model. Because these "smaller bangs" would occur over great eons of time, and at great distances of separation, our observations would not detect the difference. An homogenous equilibrium would be left in the wake of this eternal and infinite cyclical character.
-
I was driving the other day and my 4 year old son threw a plastic bottle at the back of my head, I was driving at 80MPH, so his throw was 80MPH plus the speed of his arm, as all the objects in the car were moving at 80MPH, his throw was relative, (lets say 4MPH).
If he put his arm out of the car window, his forward throw would have gone behind the car.
Are we therefore also in a bubble of space time is my thought, unable to look out past the windows?
If we did leave our space time bubble, would we spin off into the universe at massive or very slow speeds?
Interesting maths about the 100 million light year travel too - this is time travel or at-least slowing down time.
If we are in a space time bubble, could we create one that is portable, and take it with us on long journeys, like an anti space time magnet - or warp drive, bend space time to travel in the gaps between fast and slow space time fronts possibly?
-
If we are in a space time bubble, could we create one that is portable, and take it with us on long journeys, like an anti space time magnet - or warp drive, bend space time to travel in the gaps between fast and slow space time fronts possibly?
What you appear to be describing is the " Alcubierre warp drive metric"
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/04/nasa-is-it-on-the-verge-of-discovering-warp-bubbles-enabling-dreams-of-interstellar-travel.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
-
Wow you are well read.
I had a read there and it got my head working, (all the cogs turning).
If you could create a static space time event, (space time either exceptionally slow within or static) you would become a non event mass, (removes you from the space time of the rest of the universe, gives you a physical presence that is not effected by time) so time would not run at the same speed within as anything outside, this could be a capsule within a space craft allowing you to travel in real time, without the effects of aging - obviously anyone on the outside would age as normal so at the end of a long journey everyone else would be dead.
For this reason, this would not be an ideal solution.
This has been suggested in many films, so is not something new, (none the less I would not be able to make a working model of this in my shed) so that brings me to the point.
If you could create a space craft that could remove itself from the rest of space time, (warp drive seems to be the common name for it) and propel it through space using ion propulsion, atomic power or some other similar means it all seems to check out.
HOWEVER - I should think travel through the universe would be difficult, as space time would continue to flow outside of your warp bubble, you would have no way to figure out where or even when you would reappear, if at all?
As you would not be in space time, would you be able to actually do anything?
Or would you simply appear exactly when and where you started?
Second point, what if you could 'pause' space time for the whole universe by traveling instantly point to point, (worm holes, folding space and so on, I have limited faith in these concepts to be honest) so for me these are all day dreams, however the gravity from a black hole could be used as a sling shot I would guess to achieve insane speeds - if done exactly right, this for me is the money shot.
I would love to see a warp drive of some type in my lifetime, in a working craft.
-
LesleySchultze, that is a lot of heavy duty deep thinking you engage in.
All I can say to all of that is that theoretically, the Alcubierre warp drive traps your local spacetime within the bubble. So time inside the warp bubble runs at the same rate as the origin. So if you initialised this bubble here and then travelled at whatever speed, you would age at the same time as Earth no matter your bubble's speed of travel.
Anyway that is the way I understand it.
Your thinking sounds like a lot of fun though..