Dark energy could be getting weaker, suggesting the universe will end in a 'Big Crunch

[George²]

Gradually time speed increased and space expanded with it.

I do not agree. As space expands and cools within a unit volume, processes slow down. Insofar as time is an imaginary value for the speed of processes, it also slows down. As the universe expands, it takes longer and longer for a photon to travel from one object to another, which, with the expansion, has escaped further apart. In other words, the extension/time relationship is not proportional, but inversely proportional.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

One thing that has bothered me about the idea of expansion/inflation of "space" is related to what that does to the natural processes like photon emission from an electron orbital quantum jump in an atom.

The BBT seems to think that is unchanged, and that the photons we see from such events that occurred long ago and far away started with exactly the same energy (wavelength) as we see it occur in the same process around us today. The BBT assumption seems to be that the photons are just "stretched" as they have travelled to us through "space" that is "expanding". But, if the "space" inside atoms is expanding, wouldn't that affect the energy of orbitals of the electron(s) in the atom? And, wouldn't different energy differences in the orbitals mean different emitted photon wavelengths?

Maybe somebody somewhere has thought about that already and worked it out in mathematical detail, but all I have seen so far amounts to theoretical arm waving. that is qualitative at best, not quantitative.

 

[Questioner]

I think a photon's wavelength would be longer to an external viewer as it crosses a mass field,
but by the time it hits our eyes/instruments it is renormalized to external Euclidean normal

only it's a 'younger' [less phase oscillations] photon than it otherwise would have been.

I think objects in a mass field are relatively larger to the external viewer, but internally they are the same to themselves [& the photon wavelength] in or out of the mass field.

 

[Questioner]

So I guess objects/atoms are relatively shrinking as time speeds up & space expands.

 

[Catastrophe]

Have you seen my posts 440 and, more importantly, 447? This idea - our Universe is perceived as the "surface of a sphere" from a higher dimensional (observer) was originally related to "expansion of the universe" It is, of course, an analogy.

This hinges on the "expansion" of our Universe" as perceived by a higher dimensional being.

This immediately requires a revision of our terminology.

Universe must be limited to all there is, as available to our senses.

A new (perhaps) Superverse would (for example) extend to include all that we can (and will ever be able to) perceive plus all that ever may be perceivable by any intelligent being. We are probably unable to complete this qualification at this time.

Page 18 - From a drop of water....

Page 18 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Page 18 - From a drop of water....

Page 18 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

#440 and #447 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN.


Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Cat, I am not sure whether your posted references to #440 and #447 are directed to me or not, but I read them and don't see any problem with respect to what I have posted in this thread.

I have read "Flat Land" and understand the concept of unperceived higher dimensions. However, that is just a theory - one of many, when it comes to understanding the universe.

My points in my posts here are not dependent on the number of dimensions that may be unperceived by us. They relate to what appear to me to be inconsistencies in the theories about how what we do perceive was generated/caused by phenomena that our theories do describe in 3D space + time.

 

[Catastrophe]

Unclear Engineer, I just asked generally if anyone reading was aware of these ideas.
That would include your good self, and was intended as a polite question. If there was anything there which you interpreted as negative, then I apologise for any possible ambiguity.

I am interested to know how the suggested:

This immediately requires a revision of our terminology.

would be received.

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Regarding terminology for what comprises "the" universe vs "our" universe, etc., I doubt we could get agreement on "universe" as all we can observe vs "superverse" for anything postulated beyond what we can observe.

We already have "observable universe" as a subset of the whole "universe", and the position by some that there is nothing outside the universe by definition of the word "universe". It becomes a sort of a conceptual boundary problem, with no real agreement on the boundary.

For instance, once something that is clearly in our universe goes into a black hole, is it still in our universe? Why? Is it because our universe surrounds it (at least in the 3 dimensions we perceive)? Even though we can no longer observe whatever is in it? Or, has it left our universe? It still has some effect on our universe in the way of gravity and frame dragging, so is that reason to say it is in our "universe" instead of becoming part of the "superverse"? And, what about "dark matter" that may or may not be observable in our universe, but seems to have effects on our observations? If that were in an unperceived dimension that we cannot observe, but it still affects us with gravitation and frame dragging, is it inside or outside our "universe" or the "superverse"?

I think I understand your concept, but I don't think it is going to move us forward in the discussion, because the boundary is too theoretical, and there are too many competing theories.

I liked your earlier effort at clarifying the definitions using "observable" universe, etc., but I don't remember where that is posted.