Expanding Universe

Geniere

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
336
0
0
Most physicists presume the universe began as a ?Big Bang? after which all matter and energy resided in an unimaginably hot ball of plasma. This ball expanded, and after about 4-hundred-thousand years cooled sufficiently to allow the photons to escape. These photons we now detect and call the ?cosmic microwave background? (CMB). No matter what part of the sky we look at, we see almost the same CMB brightness (intensity). This means that the universe appears to be flat. By flat, I mean that if one were to draw a very large triangle of cosmic proportions, the internal angles would add up to 180 degrees. If the universe were curved, the angles would not sum to 180, but to a greater or lesser number. Hubbell was one of the first to notice that the further a galaxy was away from us, the greater the spectrum of emitted light was shifted to a lower energy. This is due to the fact that a photon emitted from an object moving away at a great velocity is seen by us as having less energy, or a change in color. In other words a blue photon might be seen as being red. This phenomenon was termed ?red shift?. By analyzing the light from stars in distant galaxies, and comparing their spectrum with similar, nearby stars, we can determine their relative velocity; the speed they are moving away from us. This method fails when viewing the most distant galaxies, as it is not possible to view individual stars. Astronomers have turned to studying super novas with known properties to extract data indicating the expansion velocity of the universe.

The amazing result was, not only is the universe expanding, it is expanding at an accelerated rate. The properties of a curved universe could be used to indicate the expansion only seemed to accelerate. A flat universe implies the acceleration is real!

There is no known form of energy that can cause the acceleration, so ?Dark Energy ? is the term used to describe this unknown force. One of the properties of dark energy is that it must act in opposition to the gravitational force. Since matter and energy are interchangeable terms, the density of the universe could be called ?energy density?, useful since it?s more descriptive of the conditions of the primordial fireball. Briefly, the history of our universe might be:

The expansion of the early universe resulted in the same amount of energy distributed more or less equally throughout a greater volume of space. The energy density decrease means the universe was cooling and eventually matter was condensed from its constituents. As it continued to expand, local gravitational anomalies allowed the formation of gas clouds that eventually formed the early stars of the most distant galaxies. Continued expansion further decreased the energy density until about 4 billion years ago the energy density dropped below that of dark energy. The previous rate of expansion then changed to an accelerated rate. Some physicists believe this will eventually lead to the ?Big Rip?. The Big Rip may occur when the universe is about 20 billion years old. The stars will separate from the galaxies as their gravitational attraction is overwhelmed by dark energy. In the last 30 seconds, atoms will be torn apart with the process continuing until there is only dark energy.
 

xSauronx

Lifer
Jul 14, 2000
19,582
4
81
do we yet know that the universe will continue expanding at an accelerated rate indefinitely?

or is there still a question of there possibly being enough matter for the gravity of the universe to eventually halt and reverse the expansion and squeeze us all back into a very dense ball of matter again?

linkage would be nice, im still rather new to this topic
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
actually, I was under the impression that the universe WASN'T expanding as fast as would be predicted by the mass of observable matter...which is why they decided "dark matter" must exist, to hold the universe together a bit more due to gravity.
 

Geniere

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
336
0
0
XSauronx
do we yet know that the universe will continue expanding at an accelerated rate indefinitely?

or is there still a question of there possibly being enough matter for the gravity of the universe to eventually halt and reverse the expansion and squeeze us all back into a very dense ball of matter again?

linkage would be nice, im still rather new to this topic
jagec
actually, I was under the impression that the universe WASN'T expanding as fast as would be predicted by the mass of observable matter...which is why they decided "dark matter" must exist, to hold the universe together a bit more due to gravity.
It?s probably premature to discount most theories re: the fate and structure of the universe. I guess the most prevalent could be called the ?Big Horizon?, ?Big Crunch?, or ?Big rip?. The Big Horizon may simply be the universe expands at some velocity eventually leaving only cold ashes of matter behind. The Dark Energy scenario of the Big Horizon may be that only our local galaxy (one very large galaxy formed from our local cluster) will be known to us. All other matter will be hidden from us, a scenario similar to the event horizon of a black hole. The Big Crunch could occur if the density of the universe is sufficient to contract it and possibly repeat the Big Bang. ?Brane? versions of string theory allow for multiple universes. In a Scientific American magazine article the authors describe the Big Bang as an interaction of Branes. I think the article is available on the site (Sciam.com)
For the more technical person I like this link : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403324 or for the less technical this link: http://physicsweb.org/article/world/17/5/7
blahblah99
On a related topic, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
Probably a philosophical question, but the SciAm article provides some insight into this.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: blahblah99
On a related topic, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

It doesn't necessarily have to be expanding into something if there is a dimension 'above' the one you are in. A flat piece of cardboard has to expand "into" something if you increase it's area. There will be 'cardboard' and 'not cardboard'. One expands into the other. If it was all 'cardboard' there would be nothing to expand into.

If you add another dimension to the two dimensional example you can create curved surfaces. The surface of an expanding baloon increases in size. On a two dimensional level it's all 'baloon' forever yet it can still expand in the absence of 'not baloon' provided there is another dimension above the one you are in.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: blahblah99
On a related topic, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

Stephen Hawking has a book out now, Universe In A Nutshell. In it, one of his ideas is that the Universe expansion includes space itself - matter, energy, and space all came from the Big Bang. He also proposed that we could never reach the edge of this space, simply because it was expanding faster than it would be possible to move. I don't recall the particulars of it (it's been over a year since I read it, maybe two), but it had to do with approaching the speed of light, and that relativistic effects would prevent the reaching of the "barrier" of the end of the expansion.
I don't know about that though...emptiness seems like something that simply exists everywhere - it is all that is lacking matter and energy. The outer shockwave of the Universe has merely pervaded only a certain volume; there is a great deal more emptiness for it to dissipate into. But this only deals with 3 space dimensions, and one time. And it's a simple theory, thought up by someone without advanced theoretical physics knowledge. :)


On the speed of the expansion - there is said to be a "dark energy" out there, something that is almost like gravity's opposite, which is actually accelerating objects spread far enough apart, so as to severely weaken gravity's effects. This seems to go with Hawking's idea, that spacetime itself is also spreading out. If the fabric sheet upon which all the matter is placed is also stretching out, the objects upon it, while themselves moving apart, are also being pulled farther apart by the stretching. What causes it to accelerate though, rather than move at a constant or declining speed? That dark energy element would explain that.
I imagine it may be quite a number of decades or quite possibly centuries before we are able to figure out the nature of the expansion. Or even longer. We're stuck with one tiny vantagepoint right now; future space explorers may be able to explore interstellar, and hopefully, eventually, intergalactic space. Still, not much of a bigger vantagepoint, but it will definitely help.
As I said, it may be quite some time off. :)
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
From a nontechnical point of view, I favor the eventual collapse of the known universe. Everything else we know of is part of a cycle. Seems unlikely that this is a one of a kind event that isn't part of a cycle. I don't advance this as an argument, merely as a preference.
 

Geniere

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
336
0
0
I share your preference, its probably a human need to preserve the species forever.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
The theory of accelerated expansion isn?t the end-all to galaxies, just the spreading of non bound celestial bodies at an accelerating pace. Most all galaxies so far have been thought to contain super-massive singularities/Black Holes, so a galaxy should be exempt in itself from the spreading/accelerated distancing, at least until the singularity/Black Hole expends itself. At that point, individual solar systems and non-bound bodies should begin spreading/accelerating as do the galaxies according to the theory. That would indeed make for a boring nighttime sky for those still around to see it.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
It seems like the idea of dark matter was simply made up to fit the other details they've discovered. As far as I know, they still haven't found any evidence that there IS 'dark matter' and no one knows what or where it would actually be. My best guess would be that it will go the way of ether, Einstein's 'universal expansion correction factor', and spontaneous generation; as more information is discovered, dark matter will be unnecessary and eventually disproven.
 

Geniere

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
336
0
0
In response to several posts re: ?dark matter?. There is a great deal of evidence to support its existence. Galaxies are held together by the mutual gravitational attraction of its constituents. When all is accounted for the total mass of ?normal? matter is far short of that needed to hold the galaxy together. There must be something that acts only via gravitational forces, not through a strong force such as an electric field. The particles that would compose dark matter are sometimes called ?Wimps? for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Billions of them must pass through our bodies every second without us knowing. The universe seems to be made of about 5% normal matter, about 33 percent of dark matter, with the remaining mass consisting of dark energy. Experiments are now underway to try to detect Wimps. The first results from a mine in Russia were negative.

Einstein included a fudge factor in his works to account for some contradictory experimental and calculated data. He later called it his greatest mistake and removed it partially due to Hubble?s findings. He may have been correct after all if dark energy fits the bill.
 

blahblah99

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2000
2,689
0
0
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: blahblah99
On a related topic, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

It doesn't necessarily have to be expanding into something if there is a dimension 'above' the one you are in. A flat piece of cardboard has to expand "into" something if you increase it's area. There will be 'cardboard' and 'not cardboard'. One expands into the other. If it was all 'cardboard' there would be nothing to expand into.

If you add another dimension to the two dimensional example you can create curved surfaces. The surface of an expanding baloon increases in size. On a two dimensional level it's all 'baloon' forever yet it can still expand in the absence of 'not baloon' provided there is another dimension above the one you are in.

But the cardboard is expanding into physical space. If you're talking about objects in the universe expanding, then that makes sense... but if you're talking about the universe itself expanding, then it doesn't. If the universe itself is expanding, then where is that "space" that wasn't previously taken up by the universe coming from?

In other words, is there more space outside the universe?
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
No, I'm saying the cardboard REPRESENTS physical space. In the traditional sense, any 'not cardboard' represents what is outside existence. You can only make this work if there is another dimension (in this example a 3rd dimension) involved. If there is you can represent the cardboard with a sphere instead of a plane. The sphere can expand into a 3rd dimension and allow space to expand with:
1. The space not actually being infinite in size but still being 'endless'
2. Not needing anything for space to expand into.
Keep in mind that inhabitants of this cardboard universe only see a two dimensional piece of cardboard stretching out forever. They are not aware that a third dimension even exists. Actually they may be aware of its existence and see evidence of it but they cannot travel through it or truly comprehend it.

For these two dimensional inhabitants to reach the end of their universe and go beyond they would need to leave the surface of the cardboard sphere and travel in their third dimension away from the sphere faster than it is expanding.

If you shift everything up one notch to make it apply to our reality you'll start with a 3 dimensional piece of cardboard representing the universe and to expand it you'll need a 4th dimension. In order for space to:
1.) Appear endless but not be infinite
2.) Expand without anything to expand into
You will need this 4th dimension, or time.

You can reach the end of the universe and see what is beyond, but to do so you would have to travel forward in time faster than the universe is expanding. Since the universe at its furthest edges is being expanded by light radiating you would need to travel faster than the speed of light.

Now jump forward yet another notch. If you were able to view the universe as a 4 dimensional object (now including time) would you find it is endless again and expanding? We already know of a 5th dimension and beyond...
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
It seems like the idea of dark matter was simply made up to fit the other details they've discovered. As far as I know, they still haven't found any evidence that there IS 'dark matter' and no one knows what or where it would actually be.

yes, that's how hypotheses work. Someone notices an effect which is not consistant with expected correlations, hypothesizes a new model or the existance of a new factor that would explain the deviations, then over the next hundred years or so people argue and bicker until they either find a better model, discover the particle/force/whatever that was causing the deviations, or give up and accept it as the de facto model until someone can come up with a better one or a case which it does not explain.

That's the scientific method, baby :cool:
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
It seems like the idea of dark matter was simply made up to fit the other details they've discovered. As far as I know, they still haven't found any evidence that there IS 'dark matter' and no one knows what or where it would actually be.

yes, that's how hypotheses work. Someone notices an effect which is not consistant with expected correlations, hypothesizes a new model or the existance of a new factor that would explain the deviations, then over the next hundred years or so people argue and bicker until they either find a better model, discover the particle/force/whatever that was causing the deviations, or give up and accept it as the de facto model until someone can come up with a better one or a case which it does not explain.

That's the scientific method, baby :cool:

But, in between, they use the new model to make predictions. Then, they test the predictions to see if they are true. If those predictions *DO* turn out to be true, then it's seen as further evidence to support the theory. According to geniere, they're looking for dark matter now. Suppose they find it? What then? A lot of the greatest discoveries don't come from "I'm going to prove this", but rather from "hmmmm, that's funny. I wonder what's making it do that?" Just look at the evolution of the standard model.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Some days I can't help but wonder if we're not just dead wrong.

Have you seen the models of the solar system prior to the Sun centered one? The orbital paths had gotten so complicated trying to explain why Mars would sometimes go backwards in the sky or some other anomoly. At the height of this belief the model was so complex that few could follow it. Then along came this idea of moving the sun to the center and everything fell into this simple model of concentric elipses.

Sometimes I wonder if we're not on the edge of a similar fall into simplicity as someone has a great revelation about the universe and spacetime.

I read it and I follow it, but I still just don't know if I can swallow it. Somehow the nature of the universe has to be more simple.