PDA

View Full Version : Universe Expansion Theory (why I put this on a Halo forum I have no idea)



Flyboy
March 14th, 2008, 04:39 PM
Overview Of What Is Known:
Now I'm sure for those of you who have the will to read this already know these facts, however for those of you who might be willing to learn something new then allow me to state some of the known knowledge of the universe that actually apply to this subject. If you know what your talking about then you might as well skip this, but for those who don't I suggest you read. Also...err...prepare to read a lot.

In The Beginning:
What is theorized to be 13-14 billions years ago space was condensed to a mass relatively the size of an atom. Every ounce of matter in the universe was contained in a spec too small for even the most sensitive microscopes to spot. The gravitational force in this spec was so immense that it continued to collapse on into itself to a infinite density and size. Eventually this mass broke open one way or another, likely because of the sheer unimaginable forces acting inside it. A tremendous explosion happened as it ripped and all the matter in the universe was spit out of the spec at impossible speeds and densities. This is what we call the big bang theory, and it is the commonly accepted idea among scientists.

Expansion:
The big bang expanded the universe with insane speed and power, not only was the area that matter covered increased, but the actual volume of space itself changed as well. Something people must understand is that in space there is no resistance, as it is a vacuum. One of the basic and fundamental laws is the law of Inertia. It states that an object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless enacted upon by another force. In earth objects stop moving after a period of time as a result of the forces enacting upon them, those forces being gravity and air resistance. As said in the above, space is a vacuum so there is no gravity or air resistance slowing these objects down in the beginning (theoretically there is but we'll get to that in a second). As a result these objects keep expanding for a large period of time eventually resulting in the immense size of the universe today. Gravity from each of these pint sized particles attracted them together, thus resulting in a larger mass. This larger mass attracts smaller masses and would reverse them from their original path. As a result the objects flying away from the big bang would eventually slow down, as objects tugged them towards one another. Eventually this entire idea of expansion would theoretically reverse itself and the new largest mass would eventually attract all of the other objects back upon itself. From that point the circle would repeat itself with another big bang right? Wrong.

Acceleration Of Expansion:
Many of you know of the Hubble telescope. Well it was named after a man who probably created the largest puzzle to science in human history. Hubble calculated that space was not only expanding, but in fact it was accelerating. This shocked and baffled the entire scientific community and has been a puzzle for decades. There are several theories, all of which have several holes and have problems to them. I'd list them here but you could probably go get more information from a wikipedia article. So currently, there is no universal theory to Hubble's law of inflation.

General Relativity:
In order to understand the theory I'm about to present you need some basic background on General Relativity. Einstein is mainly known for his work, by the common man, regarding the equation E=MC^2. However his ultimate triumph was general relativity. General relativity basically states that space itself is effected by gravity. It's hard to explain with words so allow me to use a picture.

-----\-------/-------\------------/
------\-----/---------\----------/
-------\_o_/----------\---------/
-----------------------\-------/
------------------------\-----/
-------------------------\_0_/

With the above you can see a net. The heavier (in this case the larger o represents a heavier piece of mass) mass creates a larger whole, or depression. This is exactly how space works, masses not only attract other masses, they suck space into themselves. So the placement of different masses shapes space to how heavy the mass is. This is how black holes and heavy objects actually have the ability to bend light, because their gravity bends space, thus bending the path light is required to take. And because of it my theory can work.


The Theory:
The short version of this story is basically the idea that the universe is not simply moving out in one direction, that direction being outward of the source of the big bang. What it is doing is spinning, rotating from the center of origin, or the big bang point. If you understand what that means then good. If you don't, then once again allow me to explain.

Centripetal Force:
Centripetal force is the force that causes an object to spin in a circle, now what happens if we apply this to the universe then we get a pretty interesting result. When something is spinning, there is a force causing it to want to move away from the point it is spinning around. For example if you take a ball and spin it around on a string, the string will tighten as the ball gains momentum. And I swear if you cut that string that ball is going to fly outwards away from the circle. Basically the object wants to go outward, which is exactly why there would be tension in the string. Now apply this to space and you'll realize that there would all of a sudden be a urge for the universe to expand outwards (we getting somewhere?). So these objects, if under a centripetal force would have a desire to move outwards. But what explains the accelerating? This requires a bit of an explanation, and an understanding of general relativity. Now imagine that the walls of space time are not only effected by the objects contained within them, but those objects have a similar effect on space itself. Basically I'm saying what if space has properties of matter, and it's not just some random barrier. Because of this the matter that is spinning is not just going alone, it is dragging space along with it, the forces that caused it to spin would also effect space itself as well. As a result space time itself would be rotating, and if the objects aren't dragging it along, then it would be the other way around, where space drags objects in this circle. In which case the idea explains itself quite well, but rather than make a lecture about that as well I'll relate it to something everyone knows quite well. Pizza.

Pizza Doe Explanation:
Rather than using the ball on a string idea I can use something that makes a bit more sense to explain this. Imagine your a baker with a slab of pizza doe, and you need to make it into a very, very, very thin pizza. Oh yeah, also imagine there's no gravity in your bakery aside from the pizza doe itself, and that your somehow alive in a vacuum. So you give the pizza a good spin, and then watch what happens. As you spin the pizza around and around in your hands you notice it gets thinner and thinner as it goes around. Why? Centripetal Force. But after a while you'll begin to notice this pizza is getting both terribly thin and terribly long, your also going to start noticing that the pizza is stretching out faster and faster. Why is this? Well as the pizza doe gets stretched out, the texture of the doe starts becoming weaker. The strength that once held the doe together is fading. (if you actually try this you'll get the same result) So as a result less force is required to get the doe to stretch, as it has much less resistance than it once did. However if the same amount of force is continuesly applied then the pizza will expand faster. This basically covers how the universe is expanding at an increased rate. As the force that binds space time together gets weaker, the force required for it to expand becomes less, but under the same amount of force that expansion will accelerate. However, at a certain point the doe will no longer have to strength to hold itself together against the forces that are pulling it apart.

So What Does That Imply:
Nothing intentionally. I'm just trying to provide an explanation for why the universe accelerates. But if you want me to get all dooms day then I might as well. What this implies is that the new end of the universe could very well be a point where space just begins to break apart under the strain of force enacting on it. At that point I have no idea what would happen, theoretically it could be nothing. However what lies outside of space time very well might not be friendly. But hell, I think thats a lot cooler than the big crunch idea. Much more mystique.

One Vital Flaw:
There is one error that I have considered in this theory, and the error if true makes it impossible to one extent. As I said before, in order for this theory to work space time needs to have properties of matter. And like in the example when the pizza doe was spun, it became thin. So this theory works for the X and Z axises, but not for the Y. Because instead of moving away from us, for a temporary period of time objects would be getting closer as the universe began to thin out like the pizza doe. However over a period of time, once the universe became thin enough it would still appear that all objects would be moving away. So it's actually a question of what point in this spinning cycle we are. If we're late in then this would actually work, as we currently see everything moving away. However if we're still early on, then this theory is a no go.

Another Explanation Of Acceleration Through Spinning That Gets Rid Of The Flaw:
The original idea that I came up with did not state that space was expanding because of the centripetal force on the objects. Basically the idea constitutes that as the objects rotate, the force making them expand remains a constant. However as they get farther away their momentum would increase relative to their position and distance from the center. Because of this they would want to move away from the source faster en light of their increased momentum as their distance increased. So relative to anythings position, things would be moving away from them. Many of you might say that "the mass of the objects traveling around this aether would slow each other down because of their gravitational pull on each other". Not exactly so however. Because everything is spinning at once, relative to our position it appears as if nothing is spinning. The only thing that one can see is that objects are moving away. As a result we have no idea how fast everything could be spinning, if we're traveling at say half the speed of light around a given point then the momentum of each object would increase drastically. So much so that gravity could pull objects towards other objects, but not stop the spinning. This is also because the object that is attracting the other object is moving as well, so in the end both objects will continue their rotation. (I hope you understood that) In other words we can look at it like the earth and the moon. Just because the gravity of the earth makes the moon orbit around it, the moon is still moving with the earth around the sun. Both theories would work. However I started with the one I did for the simple reason that it's easier to explain than this one. However this one lacks the vital flaw of the first and makes it more practical.




Ok that's basically it. Keep in mind that I'm not some big fancy pants astrophysicists. I know basic physics and formulas and I'm pretty much working on my own background knowledge here. So feel free to tear this apart as much as possible. I'll try to answer any questions on it. Oh, and one more request. Please don't reply unless you have something intelligent to say. :shake:

Whew that took a while.

nooBBooze
March 14th, 2008, 04:45 PM
i swear, when i read the thread title, i was THAT [-] close to posting a goatse pic.

Okay then, ill try. umm...i never quite understood why the bing bang theory has always been the most popular theory about the origins of th universe. ive always thought of it as a borderline to philosphy theme. and since philosphy usually centers around interpretations of vague, scientific facts or voids of such i wonder why it has such a privileged status. also, is it really compatible with the M-or other string/quantum theories?
Edit: a question just poped into my mind: Wtf is "space"?

Gamerkd16
March 14th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Only the first part of the song applies sort of but..


Big Bang Theory Theme
Barenaked Ladies

Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started, wait—

The Earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool
Neanderthals developed tools; we built a wall (we built the pyramids!)
Math, science, history, unravelling the mystery
That all started with a big bang (bang!)

Since the dawn of man is really not that long
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song
A fraction of a second and the elements were made
The bipeds stood up straight, the dinosaurs all met their fate
They tried to leave but they were late and they all died (they froze their asses off!)
The oceans and Pangaea; see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!
Set in motion by the same big bang

It all started with a big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will pause then start to go the other way
Collapsing ever inward; we won't be here, it won't be heard
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here; they're catching deer (we're catching viruses!)
Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy
It all started with a big bang

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with a big bang
It all started with a big BANG!

Music Video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Aym8_S3BXKw)Woot! :D
Awesome TV Show
But yeah. That first part of the song applies to what you were explaining a bit. With a catchy tune. The youtube vid is in the bottom of the CODE.

cheezdue
March 14th, 2008, 05:06 PM
Overview Of What Is Known:
What is theorized to be 13-14 billions years ago space was condensed to a mass relatively the size of an atom.

didnt know that. How can everything we see in the universe be so compressed into such a small atom then explode into what we know call the universe. I could never imagine how could that be :omfg:. This was a very interesting thread. +rep

Emmzee
March 14th, 2008, 05:11 PM
tl;dr

TeeKup
March 14th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Well think of it this way.

If I remember something from the history channel, if an atom was propotioned to the size of a baseball, you could fit something like the size of a cruise liner in between the nucleus and the electrons, although I don't quite remember.

Besides, every theory has its somewhat illogical explanations. The big bang has the theory that everything was once the atom bomb, and the creationsim theory says dinosaurs and man once lived together.

It all depends on how you interpret it or what you truly believe in.

Flyboy
March 14th, 2008, 05:13 PM
i swear, when i read the thread title, i was THAT [-] close to posting a goatse pic.

Okay then, ill try. umm...i never quite understood why the bing bang theory has always been the most popular theory about the origins of th universe. ive always thought of it as a borderline to philosphy theme. and since philosphy usually centers around interpretations of vague, scientific facts or voids of such i wonder why it has such a privileged status. also, is it really compatible with the M-or other string/quantum theories?
Edit: a question just poped into my mind: Wtf is "space"?
Nope, not compatible at all from my knowledge. However the big bang theory has the popularity it does because people favor a starting point. It's hard to think of forever and ever. Also the fact that the universe is expanding indicates at one point it was far smaller. And because matter is neither created or destroyed all this mass would likely be close enough to a point where it would attract it all together at one point. Causing a big bang scenario. Key: It makes sense.

thehoodedsmack
March 14th, 2008, 05:17 PM
People keep referring to our existence as being in space-time, right? Doesn't that mean that it's 4-dimensional? I guess that's where the Big Band comes from. In a 4-dimensional universe, time is a linear dimension, therefore it has to have a beginning. With what Flyboy said, theoretically I guess it needs to have an end as well...

nooBBooze
March 14th, 2008, 05:25 PM
not rly. it could be circular. and still the question remains wtf the thing is we call "space".


Besides, every theory has its somewhat illogical explanations. The big bang has the theory that everything was once the atom bomb, and the creationsim theory says dinosaurs and man once lived together.

idk if those two examples are really equal. its way easier backing up the evolutionary theory and claims that the earth is far older than 6000 years.

TeeKup
March 14th, 2008, 05:36 PM
I know I really couldn't think of another good comparison.

Flyboy
March 14th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Let the ignorant stay ignorant I say. If they're not willing to hear the other sides of the arguement (those who have general convert from a mindless faith to either being atheists or stop blindly following their religion and putting a bit more thought into what they believe) then let them stay how they are. Of course when they start killing people it becomes a problem.

Gamerkd16
March 14th, 2008, 05:39 PM
It goes against my theory of Big Bang:

FG Owns (http://onlinegamer999.smartvideochannel.com/media/playvideo.aspx?f=flash7&cid=9539BECCBF7A4ECBBDD3C8BAB19E6D48&v=mostviewed)

JunkfoodMan
March 14th, 2008, 05:45 PM
People keep referring to our existence as being in space-time, right? Doesn't that mean that it's 4-dimensional? I guess that's where the Big Band comes from. In a 4-dimensional universe, time is a linear dimension, therefore it has to have a beginning. With what Flyboy said, theoretically I guess it needs to have an end as well...
Time was created at the big bang. Matter/energy wasn't. Although Time had a beginning, it doesn't exactly mean it's going to end. Nothing could "exist" before time, as that suggests time existed before the big bang.

<__>

Flyboy
March 14th, 2008, 05:48 PM
I don't exactly say think time is a dimension. Time didn't start and nor did it end. Time is a human concept that people came up with, I only say space time in what I wrote because when people hear that they think of the ideas or relativity rather than the void of space. Things just happen, they're not recorded or planned.

JunkfoodMan
March 14th, 2008, 05:51 PM
I don't exactly say think time is a dimension. Time didn't start and nor did it end. Time is a human concept that people came up with, I only say space time in what I wrote because when people hear that they think of the ideas or relativity rather than the void of space. Things just happen, they're not recorded or planned.
Not leading on to the belief of "Destiny" or anything realted. The universe is a static construction, and our view of it changes as we move through this Time "Axis".
This is what I believe...

Flyboy
March 14th, 2008, 05:52 PM
To me, that be crap.

JunkfoodMan
March 14th, 2008, 05:53 PM
To me, that be crap.

k.

Bodzilla
March 14th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Well think of it this way.

If I remember something from the history channel, if an atom was propotioned to the size of a baseball, you could fit something like the size of a cruise liner in between the nucleus and the electrons, although I don't quite remember.

Besides, every theory has its somewhat illogical explanations. The big bang has the theory that everything was once the atom bomb, and the creationsim theory says dinosaurs and man once lived together.

It all depends on how you interpret it or what you truly believe in.
thats what the creationist say now.

they didnt when dinosaurs hadnt been discovered..
isnt that odd?

but heavy thread, i think i'll just stick clear of it :/

Zeph
March 14th, 2008, 10:16 PM
thats what the creationist say now.

they didnt when dinosaurs hadnt been discovered..
isnt that odd?

but heavy thread, i think i'll just stick clear of it :/
I dont seem to recall the Bible talking about duck billed platypuses either. All religion is written by man. It might be sincerely inspired by what a person of that religion would call legitimate truth, but it can only be defined by what knowledge man has.
I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible is the word of God. However, I know the version of the book sitting someone in my house has been edited many many times. On top of that, it was written by people who would shit bricks if they saw a bad magic show from today's time.

As for the physics of the universe, few people realize how complex the system is. Just look at how complex the movement of a dead leaf blowing across the ground in the wind. The leaf is an irregular shape with irregular density and irregular surface texture. The wind blowing on it can pretty much only be defined by a mean velocity. I'm not even sure how to describe the air on the other side of the leaf. Everything that absolutely describes the leaf's movement involves more components than I can begin to imagine. Granted, describing the overall movement of the contents of the universe will be less complicated because a leaf is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but everything is in motion and conservation of energy does mean it plays a role in the math.

Con
March 14th, 2008, 10:36 PM
Time was created at the big bang. Matter/energy wasn't. Although Time had a beginning, it doesn't exactly mean it's going to end. Nothing could "exist" before time, as that suggests time existed before the big bang.

<__>
I'm not so sure. In order for time to be created, there had to have been a before state (without time) and an after state (with time). The very idea of creation requires time to have existed in the first place. The big bang might be our universe traveling through a higher dimension, much like how if a 2d universe were traveling through a sphere-shaped dimension or something. The 2d universe would appear to be growing and shrinking as it bisected the sphere. This is like how we can only see "slices" of time (the current moment) as we move through the 4th dimension.

jngrow
March 15th, 2008, 12:08 AM
I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible is the word of God. However, I know the version of the book sitting someone in my house has been edited many many times. On top of that, it was written by people who would shit bricks if they saw a bad magic show from today's time.


Iunno why, I just liked this post/what you said.

Anyways, on the topic of this whole expanding universe thing, I think it's interesting. But it made me think about something. The Big Bang definitely caused a force "greater" than gravity (gravity is extremely weak btw), and due to space being a vacuum, wouldn't it expand faster than it come back together? There's no reason it would slow down. I mean granted, yes, gravity works for large galaxies and nearby objects like our solar system, but isn't it a possibility that a whole galaxy/solar system is expanding not from itself or each other, but from the rest of of the universe. How would things slow down and come back together? Yes, over time, everything could come back together, but if it hasn't already, why would it? According

Fuck it.

Zeph
March 15th, 2008, 12:34 AM
Anyways, on the topic of this whole expanding universe thing, I think it's interesting. But it made me think about something. The Big Bang definitely caused a force "greater" than gravity (gravity is extremely weak btw), and due to space being a vacuum, wouldn't it expand faster than it come back together? There's no reason it would slow down. I mean granted, yes, gravity works for large galaxies and nearby objects like our solar system, but isn't it a possibility that a whole galaxy/solar system is expanding not from itself or each other, but from the rest of of the universe. How would things slow down and come back together? Yes, over time, everything could come back together, but if it hasn't already, why would it? According

The uproar about it right now is that we believe the universe is accelerating in its expansion. It's no big surprise to me. I mean, if you detonate a bomb, the matter in the explosion will accelerate for quite some time before drag/gravity begins causing it to decelerate. We only have an estimation for the "size" of our universe and have no real idea "how long ago" the 'big bang' occurred. That event could have relatively began in a short amount of time that gravity and all that other stuff hasn't caused the matter in the universe from hitting zero acceleration from the point of the event.

It's just another one of those things where scientists know they dont know anything for sure, but are shocked when they find something new and know they still cant explain it. Kind of like the origin of life. You'd be surprised at the number of ways you can create amino acids from the common elements of primordial earth.

Pyong Kawaguchi
March 15th, 2008, 12:37 AM
We are in the third dimension, we have an x, y and z axis, but not a fourth one, unlike the fourth dimension.
Noone can comprehend the 4th axis, because, one of a dimension, can comprehend lower dimensions, but not higher, unless they have visited that dimension.
Also, It really was when God was playing catch with king kong, And king kong through a baseball that exploded into existance
nuff said

nooBBooze
March 15th, 2008, 06:33 AM
Not leading on to the belief of "Destiny" or anything realted. The universe is a static construction, and our view of it changes as we move through this Time "Axis".
This is what I believe...
im sorry but if your weltanschauung is relatively scientifical, you are bound to have some belief in something like desteny even if it just derives from the actio-reaction principle. :/

We are in the third dimension, we have an x, y and z axis, but not a fourth one, unlike the fourth dimension.
Noone can comprehend the 4th axis, because, one of a dimension, can comprehend lower dimensions, but not higher, unless they have visited that dimension.
Also, It really was when God was playing catch with king kong, And king kong through a baseball that exploded into existance
nuff said
the 4th dimension is time. duh.

also, my question wtf "space" is, remains unanswered. im serious guys. the more i thik of it, the more the concept of "space" avoids my mind. is it just the duality of vaccuum and matter or what? D:

Flyboy
March 15th, 2008, 10:39 AM
My dad had an idea (which kinda transformed into what I posted but was still far off) that space was some kind of medium, an aether per say. That could explain our findings of dark matter and this so called dark energy.

bitterbanana
March 15th, 2008, 11:49 AM
I like your "pizza dough" theory. That was a very interesting read; thanks for sharing!

Flyboy
March 15th, 2008, 03:47 PM
Thanks.

Tweek
March 16th, 2008, 06:49 AM
My dad had an idea (which kinda transformed into what I posted but was still far off) that space was some kind of medium, an aether per say. That could explain our findings of dark matter and this so called dark energy.

elaborate

bitterbanana
March 17th, 2008, 03:41 PM
elaborate

Yeah, please do. I always considered space to be a natural medium, but I don't see how that explains dark matter.

Flyboy
March 17th, 2008, 04:44 PM
He compared it to like a river (though my dad doesn't know too much about space, he just came up with this idea while he was half drunk and presented it to me, from which point I adapted it). We consider space a vacuum, in a vacuum there is theoretically nothing. But what if instead of there bing a vacuum space filled with some kind of medium (no idea what). This medium would flow through the universe carrying things with it (I took this and put basic centripetal force into the equation, then boom it clicked for me, though if you use this it could be considered an entire other theory). The reason we have ideas of dark matter is because in certain places in the universe, the amount of light distortion due to gravitational force doesn't make sense, as there just isn't enough mass in that particular area. So scientists theorized that there was some how some other form of matter that bent space time that we could not see or interact with. Whats odd is that it makes complete sense, because a very large percent of the stuff we see is just impossible without additional gravity (when I say see, I mean how bent the light is when we see it). This current of aether could explain both dark matter and increased acceleration of the universe. (idk why I didn't put this in the first post)

jngrow
March 17th, 2008, 07:58 PM
He compared it to like a river (though my dad doesn't know too much about space, he just came up with this idea while he was half drunk and presented it to me, from which point I adapted it). We consider space a vacuum, in a vacuum there is theoretically nothing. But what if instead of there bing a vacuum space filled with some kind of medium (no idea what). This medium would flow through the universe carrying things with it (I took this and put basic centripetal force into the equation, then boom it clicked for me, though if you use this it could be considered an entire other theory). The reason we have ideas of dark matter is because in certain places in the universe, the amount of light distortion due to gravitational force doesn't make sense, as there just isn't enough mass in that particular area. So scientists theorized that there was some how some other form of matter that bent space time that we could not see or interact with. Whats odd is that it makes complete sense, because a very large percent of the stuff we see is just impossible without additional gravity (when I say see, I mean how bent the light is when we see it). This current of aether could explain both dark matter and increased acceleration of the universe. (idk why I didn't put this in the first post)

Sort of like what people used to think heat was? Caloric?

nooBBooze
March 18th, 2008, 07:51 AM
But isnt dark matter, matter per se? i mean it has to be seomething (matter or at least scientifically provable and measrubale stuff) or nothing (vacuum) hence my uninformed perceptions of space as a duality of matter and vaccum would be still legit.

Flyboy
March 18th, 2008, 01:42 PM
Well dark matter isn't space (if it exists), it's still matter floating in the universe. However it doesn't reflect or emit light. So in a way it could be said that it doesn't interact with normal properties of the universe (there's not much known, as it can't be seen). The only way we can find dark matter is how light is bent by the gravity of it. Even then it's hard, because you need a great mass to bend light to a point where it's visible millions to billions of light years away. However, a team of hubble scientists were able to make a map of dark matter. Oddly it makes up 5/6 of the universe. So maybe we're the dark matter.

Aliens of dark matter o_O