Universe

[evilellis2]

Why is there so much space ? For every galaxy in the universe there seems to be a lot more space. Everything seems to float around like floaters in a glass of water. why is the universe so messy...Did the universe start with a exothermic reaction ? if that is the case could we be heading for a endothermic reaction.

 

[newtonian]

evilellis2 - That involves Newton's laws of motion - and it is not messy but the universe does follow law and order.<br /><br />The great distances prevent most collisions, for example.<br /><br />The large distances involved actually allow for our safety, and is a loving provision.<br /><br />The universe began with an input of energy apparently - models vary<br /><br />The input of energy:<br /><br />.(Genesis 1:1) "1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . ."<br /><br />The cause of the property of expanding space:<br /><br />(Isaiah 40:22) ". . .There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze. . ."<br /><br />On the laws governing our universe:<br /><br />(Job 38:31-33) "31 Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki´mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke´sil constellation? 32 Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33 Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, Or could you put its authority in the earth?"<br /><br />Note that the gravitational bonds of stars, and galaxies, could never be loosened if there was not enough space between them. <br /><br />And expansion, and the energy(s?) causing this effect, are also involved in loosening gravitational bonds. <br />

 

[yevaud]

It appears "messy" because we're just specks in the toptality of all... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Yevaud - Yes, just specks!<br /><br />Imagine how small our entire planet would be to a viewer from anywhere in Andromeda galaxy!<br /><br />As an "unreality"! (See Isaiah 40:15-17)

 

[search]

With the universe expanding and accelerating where does all the energy necessary to accelerate it comes from?

 

[qso1]

Welcome to SDC.<br /><br />The energy would be the force of the original bang I would think. Think of it on a time scale of a few minutes and all the matter expands outward in the initial bang then either begins to collapse back onto itself (Some cosmologists think the Universe will eventually do this). Or will expand outward forever.<br /><br />As its all largely theoretical, we really don't know what the exact details of the Universe origins are, and probably never will. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[search]

Thanks for quick reply and welcome note q.<br />As you say the big bang itself can be the energy releaser which prompted the expansion but explosions start by accelerating and as they release energy they decelerate however it seems that the Universe "rate of expansion" is accelerating and it may continuing doing just that which brings up my initial question. Any thoughts? <br />

 

[qso1]

Explosions within the atmosphere, those we are normally accustomed to decellerate because they are eventually being stopped by atmospheric pressure.<br /><br />The expanding and accellerating expansion of the Universe is still the stuff of theory. Cosmologists do not yet have conclusive proof that the Universe is expanding and accellerating AFAIK. If it turns out it is, I can account for expansion, expanding over eons against nothing. But accelleration is a different matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[search]

Explosion is always an explosion wheather in or out of the atmosphere. However the rate at which the energy is realeased and then dissipated is dependent on "what the matter needs to fight against to get where its going". <br /><br />In the Universe and if viewed as vaccum space not much "drag" but if in reality the Universe is like a "continuous" deformed by matter then despite the low (is it that low considering the size and quantity of matter present in the Universe?!) "drag" present Big Bang is still facing an opposing force (being that force gravity).<br /><br />I agree with you when you say "The expanding and accellerating expansion of the Universe is still the stuff of theory. Cosmologists do not yet have conclusive proof that the Universe is expanding and accellerating AFAIK". <br /><br />Its actually not a theory but an hypothesis and therefore needs to be proved or disproved. <br /><br />So can anybody try to explain where the energy to accelerate the Universe comes from?<br />

 

[enigma10]

Most recent thread<br /><br />The one before that<br /><br />another<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[search]

True<br />For the same question same answer if same person or same thought, but then same thoughts brings different words from different people. Lets see it from a different angle:<br /><br />If space is indeed accelerating (increased rate of expansion) there must be a reason... <br /><br />If the Universe is viewed as a "ballon" the amount of matter within should be constant (although we are still struggling to calculate it) independently of the creation or destruction of stars unless matter is brought from outside of the Universe (I do not expect that to happen but I avoid discarding any hypothesis). <br /><br />However staying in the hypothesis of our "impermeable (to strange outside matter) ballon Universe which is expanding and accelerating at an increased rate" the M(matter) is the same the C(speed of light), if Einstein is correct, is the same and only E(energy) changes. Now for having increased rate of acceleration we need energy and if we consider that nothing goes into the Universe and nothing goes out then the source of energy must be within the Universe itself. Maybe the temperature of the Universe (now and then) can be the key...

 

[enigma10]

0.o ..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[search]

Can you be more specific...

 

[alokmohan]

Expansion of the Universe is well established scientic truth.And Big bang is well established cosmological theory.

 

[qso1]

Yes the observable evidence is that the Universe is indeed expanding and when I mentioned its "Largely the stuff of theory", largely was in that statement to leave open the factual observed evidence of an expanding Universe. But its not fully understood why. And as I mentioned to SEARCH, I could not explain any acceleration associated with it.<br /><br />I also stated the following..."Cosmologists do not yet have conclusive proof that the Universe is expanding and accellerating AFAIK"...See the AFAIK at the end? I might disagree with some cosmological theories, thats my perogative. And of course, I know the scientists have evidence I cannot possibly obtain. But I also know the process of science is ever evolving. Todays theories could be tommorows proven facts, or wind up in the dust bin of history. My point is, we really don't know.<br /><br />I agree that the BB is well established Cosmological theory. In the 1950s it was the 'Steady State" theory that was well established. Tommorow, something else until somehow, one of them can be proven which IMO, will be very nearly impossible. I won't be satisfied till someone can explain and back it up with data or better yet, proof. What existed before the BB and if nothing existed including existence itself, what data or observable evidence supports that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[search]

Exactly on both. <br />However "accelerated rate of expansion" is neither a well known thruth neither a cosmological theory nevertheless an amazing possibility which needs some source and quantity of energy.<br />Its only the hypothesis which I am asking about.

 

[search]

q. there is no "before Big Bang" because the laws which govern the Universe and which we are talking about (quant. mech. and relativ.) were only created at the moment just after (being after a very tiny fraction of time) the Big Bang. (needless to say that the laws have always existed since then and we are here to decifer them).<br /><br />It is not to say there was nothing before BB but for science it does not really matter the before. It matters however to religion. <br /><br />Science is in search (among many things) of what is going to happen in the future and for that reason we look back (13,7 Billion years ago at todays available technological observation estimates) and see what happened in the past and how the Universe has been developing. And the future "if the Universe is in an accelerated rate of expansion" its a cold, cold place where distances, if now are already great, would be unthinkable. <br /><br />Now please can anyone think which energy source could be responsible for this "accelerated rate of expansion of the Universe hypothesis"?...

 

[harmonicaman]

I, for one, don't believe there is any "E" (Energy) involved with the accelerating expansion of the universe; at least not "E" in the classical sense that we understand "E" and its relationship to "c" (the speed of light) and the expansion of time and space.<br /><br />All the "m" (mass) and "E" in the universe was created during the Big Bang event and does not change (see The Laws of Thermodynamics), it is basically a static component of the universe -- although the creation of space and expansion of time can cause "m" and "E" to change form...<br /><br />Something besides "E" must be behind the accelerating expansion we are observing; and it's even possible that our observations are incorrect and accelerated expansion is merely due to flaws in our relative perspective of the universe...<br /><br />I think the acceleration we perceive is due to the fundamental physical characteristics of our universe at the quantum, or atomic and subatomic levels. <br /><br />The accelerating universe is likely due to the interactions found in Relational Quantum Mechanics. These subatomic interactions don't really manifest themselves in our macro-universe; for example, the multi-dimensionality proposed by String Theory^(1.) is not observed in the macro-universe.<br /><br />If the expansion of space is accelerating, this may be an example of a subatomic harmonic vibration, or quantum wave that we are only able to detect by measuring the entire universe.<br /><br /><br />Read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe"<br />

 

[search]

Now we are talking...<br /><br />Total "E" and total "m" of universe remains constant just transformed (one into another or other forms such as heat, light, chemical energy, and electrical energy) but that is the first law of thermodynamics because the second law says "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." unless something comes into the system like the example in the website you presented and allow me to quote it here: "A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat."<br /><br />As for Quantum theory and again quoting another website you presented: "The core idea is to read the theory as a theoretical account of the way distinct physical systems affect each other when they interact (and not of the way physical systems "are"), and the idea that this account exhausts all that can be said about the physical world. The physical world is thus seen as a net of interacting components, where there is no meaning to the state of an isolated system. A physical system (or, more precisely, its contingent state) is reduced to the net of relations it entertains with the surrounding systems, and the physical structure of the world is identified as this net of relationships."<br /><br />Now if the Universe is treated as a isolated system then we do not have another system to compare it with or do we? Quantum theory is great for the tiny little ones but needs some help with the our big old Universe.<br /><br />My point is: i

 

[enigma10]

Perhaps the energy is not coming from anywhere , but already present. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[search]

Maybe yes

 

[search]

More on the subject<br />http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/2/4<br /><br />http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/5/3/1

 

[enigma10]

<i>However, the model still requires a "dark matter" component. Dark or "invisible" matter is thought to make up 25% of the universe -- even in the model. </i><br /><br /> Link in the post above.<br /><br /><br /> Though a cyclic universe would be an interesting theory to develope, it cant exist without some "boundry" of space to crunch from or expand to. With such a boundry, whats beyond it , or is there a vacuum energy slowly forming near the center of the universe that we know, that will eventually reach a critical negative energy and start "sucking" everything in? <br /><br /> Another notion is if the universe is accelerating , and light is the speed limit, then it would theoretically be impossible to catch up with the expanding edge of the universe to see it, without going faster than light.<br /><br /> <br /> My personal opinion is the big bang is only <b>A</b> bang that kick started our known universe, among many universes, all with slightly different laws. Like stars, i believe universes follow a similar pattern. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[eagledare]

Search I know you don't agree with the expanding earth theory but here is a good sites about the Big Bang http://www.warmingearth.com/index.htm

 

[search]

Very interesting indeed the desmissal of the Big Bang theory.<br /><br />I cannot say that I agree or disagree with any theory as long as it can be proved. I prefer to say that any proved theory is correct until its proven wrong.<br /><br />It is a fact that the work of many is based upon previous ones which are presumed to be correct.<br /><br />To challenge any establishment as always been a Galileic task.<br /><br />For those who read the previous website do not miss the following about the author: <br /><br />http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html