Metaphysics in astronomy: The myth of expanding "space".

[michaelmozina]

While it is entirely possible that "spacetime" can expand as the objects of mass expand, it is absolutely impossible for "space" (as in a pure vacuum) to "expand". Dark energy is another one of those metaphysical constructs of astronomy that should be abandoned. It is pseudo-science to claim that space expands. If we watch two objects accelerate away from one another, it might be rational to claim that EU fields influence their patterns of movement, or some other known force of nature affects their movement and drives that acceleration, but it would not be appropriate to claim that the "space" between the objects expands because of "dark energy". That is a pseudo-scientific metaphysical claim, that sits far outside of the realm of real physics. IMO, it is pure pseudo-science to claim that "space" expands. That is not a scientific explanation of the observed acceleration that is based on real physics, or the laws of physics. Dark energy is a metaphysical claim that can only be described as pseudoscience. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[dragon04]

Does this imply that "space" has always existed at a yet unknown, but finite "volume" that matter is just expanding into to "fill"?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">While it is entirely possible that "spacetime" can expand as the objects of mass expand, it is absolutely impossible for "space" (as in a pure vacuum) to "expand".</font><br /><br />Darn! You have just destroyed physics as we know it. Those poor physicist are going to be so dissapointed when they read this and find out it's "back to the drawing board".<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

Define "space" for me in terms of testable physics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Darn! You have just destroyed physics as we know it. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />What physics? Define space in terms of physics for me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

The notion of expanding space is unfalsifiable. Therefore it's not science, in the Popperian sense.

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">What physics? Define space in terms of physics for me.</font><br /><br />Whats the point you'll just start bleating metaphysics or something and then go on to say you only believe 'real' theories like "tired light".<br /><br />It is just too silly...<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

For Aristotle's work, see Metaphysics (Aristotle). For Avicenna's work, see Avicenna: Philosophy. <br /> <br />Plato (Left) and Aristotle (right), by Raphael (Stanza della Segnatura, Rome)Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology. It is also concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world.[1] Its name derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physics"), "physics" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("after") simply meant the chapters in the Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapter "physics". Aristotle called them "first philosophy". Over the time, meaning of "meta" has shifted to mean "beyond; over; transcending" in English. Therefore, metaphysics is also the study of that which transcends physics. Many philosophers such as Immanuel Kant would later argue that certain questions concerning metaphysics (notably those surrounding the existence of God, soul, and freedom) are inherent to human reason and have always intrigued mankind. Some examples are:<br /><br />What is the nature of reality? <br />Why does the world exist, and what is its origin or source of creation? <br />Does the world exist outside the mind? <br />If things exist, what is their objective nature? <br />A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.<br /><br />More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used more loosely to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore", for instance, is not one that sells books on o

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Whats the point you'll just start bleating metaphysics or something and then go on to say you only believe 'real' theories like "tired light".<br /><br />It is just too silly...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />In other words, you *can't* explain an expanding "space" in terms of real physics involving real particles. It's pure metaphysics.<br /><br />At least tired light theories are based on ideas related to real photons being influence by real plasma. The mechanism of redshift might be unidentified, or more specifically unverified, but at least it's based on real physics involving real particles. I don't suppose you actually read any of those papers by Ari?<br /><br />IMO, mainstream astronomy today is a cludge of metaphysics and mathematical mythology. "Space" (as in a pure vacuum) cannot possibly "expand" because there is nothing in a pure vacuum to expand. If we saw two objects accelerate away from one another here on earth, nobody would claim that the "space" expanded between the two objects and "caused" that acceleration. Astronomers however will point to the sky and make such a claim. Of course none of this dark energy mumbo-jumbo can be tested in real experiments involving real physics and real particles. It also completely violates the laws of conservation. It's getting to the point that it is impossible to differentiate between astronomy and astrology without a scorecard.<br /> <br />Particles of mass simply can't travel faster than light speed according to the laws of known physics, so astronomers simply invented mathematical mythologies to skirt the problem. Nevermind the fact that the physical universe could not possibly be larger than 27.4 billion light years accross, it's larger than 27.4 billion light years accross because "magic did it". Sheesh. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The notion of expanding space is unfalsifiable. Therefore it's not science, in the Popperian sense.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly. It's two bit pseudo-science wrapped up in nifty $20 math formulas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[genius2007]

In reply to:<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The notion of expanding space is unfalsifiable. Therefore it's not science, in the Popperian sense.<br /><br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br />Wouldn't the first proof of dark energy simply be testing different materials away from the protection of the gravity of the earth in the micro gravity of space.<br /><br />If space expanding is unfalsifiable then if matter fits differently that would be all the truth needed to test an unfalsifiable idea.<br /><br />Funny thing was the mirror for the Hubble telescope was made to great precision here on earth. Does the direction that it was out of focus indicate space is expanding or contracting?

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font color="cyan">Does this imply that "space" has always existed at a yet unknown, but finite "volume" that matter is just expanding into to "fill"? </font><br /><br />Expansion of the universe is needed if a single-point-origin of the universe/space is considered. I still dont understand why so many scientists believe light originated 13 billion years ago and traveling 13 billion light years of space doesn't change anything but its intensity? Photons are not Gods (figuratively) and structure of space is still mysterious. The only reason I can find is 'this makes the problem simpler'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

in Relativity therory, photons, as massless particles, are considered timeless. No time flow for something moving at c...

 

[SpeedFreek]

How do we account for the apparent time-dilation of the light from distant supernovae? It seems that supernovae that seem to be of the same type have a longer duration, the more distant the source. The duration of the supernovae are linked to their redshift. It seems as if the light has been somehow stretched during its journey.<br /><br />How do we account for the large differences in the luminosity and redshift of objects of a similar angular diameter, when those objects are very close to each other in the sky (angular separation)? If a similar angular diameter were to represent a similar distance away from us, those 2 objects would be close to each other, in the same region of space. How can their light be affected by redshift so differently? How come the higher redshifted object is far dimmer than the other object close to it, when they share a similar angular diameter? The redshift of both objects corresponds to their luminosity. It seems like the dimmer objects light has been travelling longer, but the dimmer object was at a similar distance to the brighter other one when the dimmer one emitted its light, due to its angular diameter.<br /><br />The explanation that seems to fit both examples best is that, for similar objects, dimmer light means that light has been travelling for longer, more redshifted light means that light has been stretched during the journey and the time-dilation of supernova light that corresponds to the redshift would seem to confirm that.<br /><br />Which other <b>single</b> mechanism could explain these observations? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

This is a great discussion and since you asked some very interesting questions I couldn’t resist some kind of reply. I have had an association with photons but am no expert on distant space-time.<br /><br />Tired light is mentioned on this thread as if there still is no explanation for such phenomena, consequently some would dismiss tired light. Yet the truth is that theories of correlated light that can produce changes in wavelength were proposed in the sixties and lab work done in the eighties that shows clearly that this is perhaps just as valid as the effect of Doppler in explaining red shift. There are considerations in regard the Wolf effect such as how much light from some given source is coherent. Some sources have large amounts and some do not. Quasars have larger coherence than many other sources and could therefore be more red-shifted.<br /><br />Perhaps if the coherence of sources were investigated this could explain such phenomena as some object being more red-shifted as another even though their angular size is the same. Also to consider is the actual distance correlation (call it tired light if you like, it might help for it to catch on) due to space not being empty as is presently presumed. As I see it this is a much more complicated picture than the simple Doppler assumptions. But for me it makes more sense than the current big bang theories. <br /><br />There may be other clues in the supernova that we are not considering such as the Wolfe effects of correlation to distance combined with absorption and not complete reemission of photons. This is further evidence in my view that space in between the galaxies is not empty.<br /><br />Or we can go to the science and cosmology institutions of power and money and get their vested view where they have enormous baggage momentum. But I have noticed how resistant they are to new ideas and some that publish in the journals show how they tow the line in some of their findings that do not support big bang, such

 

[SpeedFreek]

We have observations of galaxies that slightly overlap each other, where one is bright and of a low redshift and the other is dim and of a high redshift, and both have a similar angular size.<br /><br />If the explanation is that they are both a similar distance away and that space is not empty, and the "not empty" space is so localised that it highly redshifts and dims one galaxy whilst only slightly redshifting and dimming the other, I would be very interested in the nature of the thing that makes that space so "not empty" right next to space that is far more empty. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

It may be that one object does indeed have more coherence where the other does not. Also similar angular size doesn’t mean they are side by side even though they seem to overlap. <br /><br />Another possibility is that what we have found by computer modeling of real data that seems to show interconnected strings and such of galaxies that tend to indicate some EU structure. This to me indicates a nonuniform distribution of some sort of matter in the universe.<br />

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow">Also similar angular size doesn’t mean they are side by side even though they seem to overlap. </font><br /><br />It does if they have a similar structure - i.e. they are of the same type and absolute size. They must have been at a similar distance when they emitted the light we see. Unless, that is, you are proposing some mechanism that somehow magnifies the apparent angular diamater of the object during the lights journey.<br /><br />So if they were apparently at a similar distance when they emitted the light we see, and we accept the nature of light as a constant, then what might cause one to be much dimmer and more highly redshifted than the other?<br /><br />Either something interacted with their light, differently for each, across a journey of similar distance and similar space (if they overlap because they are actually near each other), or something interacted in the same way for each, over journeys of differing lengths.<br /><br />When we tie this in with the time-dilation of the duration of supernovae at different distances, it seems that either supernovae of a certain type in the past simply lasted longer than their more recent counterparts for some unknown reason, or something happens to their light on its journey to make the duration we take to receive it longer than the duration it took to emit it, and this duration ties in exactly with redshift factor. A supernova at redshift z=1 will last half as long as a supernova at redshift z=2. It is as if the light has been "stretched" by that factor during its journey. Perhaps the universe has stretched to twice the size it was, between the times of those supernovae? Perhaps the cosmological redshift of light is caused by that stretching too? Perhaps our overlapping galaxies were at similar distances during very different epochs and that stretching of the space between those epochs explains our observations? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How do we account for the apparent time-dilation of the light from distant supernovae? It seems that supernovae that seem to be of the same type have a longer duration, the more distant the source. The duration of the supernovae are linked to their redshift. It seems as if the light has been somehow stretched during its journey.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm afraid it gets a lot more complicated at higher redshifts.<br /><br />http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0511628<br /><br />It's not clear that the SN1a data supports any cosmology model very well.<br /><br />From a tired light perspective, I believe this is probably the best explanation I've seen:<br /><br />http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How do we account for the large differences in the luminosity and redshift of objects of a similar angular diameter, when those objects are very close to each other in the sky (angular separation)? If a similar angular diameter were to represent a similar distance away from us, those 2 objects would be close to each other, in the same region of space. How can their light be affected by redshift so differently? How come the higher redshifted object is far dimmer than the other object close to it, when they share a similar angular diameter? The redshift of both objects corresponds to their luminosity. It seems like the dimmer objects light has been travelling longer, but the dimmer object was at a similar distance to the brighter other one when the dimmer one emitted its light, due to its angular diameter.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You're going to have to give me a specific instance. You could be referring to any two objects, so it's difficult to generalize. It could be that you're looking at a distance galax <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

There are 2 very similar threads here at the moment and I posted my comments in the other one before I saw your more thorough explanation here.<br /><br />It seems we have to wait for better data for the time-dilation of type 1a supernovae before we can be sure it is in conflict with the Lambda-CDM model, but it is looking a bit dicey for sure!<br /><br />So why is Arp so marginalised then?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[themage]

I am no expert, however I would like to indulge myself in this conversation for arguments sake.<br /><br />I guess lets start off with the concept of "space" and how its expanding. There are real ideas that are tossed into this as to why space is expanding and how things move away from each other. I'd like to note that I didn't read everyone’s post, so excuse me if someone already mentioned this. First of all, we have the Doppler Effect. I did see you were arguing with someone about the possible validity of it. Well guess what, the Doppler Effect doesn't just apply to space, it applies to everything. Here’s a good example:<br /><br />Your standing on the street and a ambulance is coming towards you. The closer it is coming the louder it gets. Then all of a sudden it passes you and the sirens become significantly lower. Voila, you have the Doppler Effect in a real world situation.<br /><br />So now that we have a solid base on that, let’s continue on to the next problem, expanding space. We have a little something called Thermodynamics, which one of the laws state that when you have mass and volume, if mass increases but volume stays the same the temperature rises. Same goes when Volume decreases and Mass stays the same. Then we have when the volume increases but mass stays the same and vice Versa we have a lower temperature. I think you know where I’m going with this. And now that brings me to the CMB radiation. We have a pretty constant temperature throughout the cosmos. Anyways, I think you can make the correlation between the laws of thermodynamics and the CMB temp.<br /><br />On the subject about dark energy. From what I can see, we have 2 outlooks throughout the science community on what exactly this is. The first one is the misnomer that you took, which is everyone thinks that "dark energy" is just another force someone made up to explain the unexplained. The second outlook is that is it just a placeholder for a up and coming theory to explain cosmic expansion

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So why is Arp so marginalised then?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />My guess is that Arp was marginalized because he was a little "too vocal" in his dissent. It's interesting actually because many of his ideas are now enjoying observational support and therefore new interest, the mainstream just never mentions his name.<br /><br />http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12622-did-our-galaxys-black-hole-eat-its-baby-brother.html<br /><br />You'll note that Arp was the first individual to propose this type of ejection sequence. His name is not even mentioned in the article however. The mainstream marginalized Arp because they didn't like the fact that he believed that the redshifting phenomenon was more complex than first thought. It turns out that he was right about that, but then he still a heretic after all. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am no expert, however I would like to indulge myself in this conversation for arguments sake.<br /><br />I guess lets start off with the concept of "space" and how its expanding. There are real ideas that are tossed into this as to why space is expanding and how things move away from each other. I'd like to note that I didn't read everyone’s post, so excuse me if someone already mentioned this. First of all, we have the Doppler Effect. I did see you were arguing with someone about the possible validity of it. Well guess what, the Doppler Effect doesn't just apply to space, it applies to everything. Here’s a good example:<br /><br />Your standing on the street and a ambulance is coming towards you. The closer it is coming the louder it gets. Then all of a sudden it passes you and the sirens become significantly lower. Voila, you have the Doppler Effect in a real world situation.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm with you so far.....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So now that we have a solid base on that, let’s continue on to the next problem, expanding space. We have a little something called Thermodynamics, which one of the laws state that when you have mass and volume, if mass increases but volume stays the same the temperature rises.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What "mass" are you suggesting that "space" is made of? Wouldn't that kind of mass also have an upper speed limit (i.e. the speed of light)? <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Same goes when Volume decreases and Mass stays the same. Then we have when the volume increases but mass stays the same and vice Versa we have a lower temperature. I think you know where I’m going with this. And now that brings me to the CMB radiation. We have a pretty constant temperature throughout the cosmos. Anyways, I think you can make the correlation between the laws of thermodynamics and the CM</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[themage]

<font color="yellow">I'm not convinced that this is a valid argument. I can accept that temperature and volume are directly related, and I can accept that mass particles can experience a thermodynamic process of expansion by increasing the temperature of the mass particles. I see nothing about standard thermodynamics however that would allow for particles of mass to travel faster than light, or that thermodynamics would allow for "space" itself to actually expand. The particles can increase their external pressure and drive expansion. In other words the particles of mass could expand as temperatures increase, but the space between the particles would not expand, the particles themselves would move and create more space between the particles. The particles are driving the expansion process, not the space between the particles. The particles of mass would still be limited to speeds that were less than the speed of light. <br /><br />The other major problem is the fact that the universe is presumably cooling off, so if anything, the particles of mass should be contracting as the temperature of the universe decreases. I just don't see how a thermodynamic argument helps to explain an expansion of mass particles that exceeds the speed of light. </font><br /><br /><br />Ok, lets try this then. Maybe I wasn't as descriptive enough with my explanation as to the universal expansion. I think we may be on the same page here, but im not to sure.<br /><br />What was space before space occupied space? We don't know and at our current technology we have no way of knowing. We have evidence that space is expanding due to the Doppler Effect. That can not be denied and it seems that you agree with me on that part. <br /><br />Now lets take it a little deeper then that (from this point on I’m going to make a few personal assumptions). <br /><br /><br />Lets start with how a particle can travel faster then the speed of light. This is a tricky subject and if you don't ask the right quest

 

[signalhill]

Space itself is nothingness, really. It is not composed of anything. It is a void. How a void can do anything but exist is beyond me. <br /><br />To imply that the space itself is stretching implies that the vacuum of space has some kind of substance, eg, aether or the like. <br /><br />So it looks like physics isn't much past the aether stage, with expanding spacetime being a backdoor aether. <br /><br />Otherwise, space must be a void of nothingness which positive matter, ie, something, is defined. Very simple.