First, I'd like to clarify that I'm in no way a physicist, not yet, anyway. I'm merely a young college student fascinated by all things..."big-picture" physics, for lack of a better word. As such, my scope is very narrow, and my understanding, limited. That being said, the following, "theory," or thought, is probably a better word for it, likely holds no water or, is in no way plausible due to some physical law I'm not aware of. So please be gentle when you poke holes in this.
Also, I don't realistically believe this.
We attribute the expansion of the universe to dark energy, but what if there isn't actually any dark energy? What if we are actually part of a multiverse, and to my understanding, a multiverse implies that all possible configurations of a universe are recognized. So what if this means that not only are there universes out there with different physical laws than ours, but also universes with higher dimensions as well?
My "theory" is this: It's not dark energy pushing our universe from within. It's another higher dimensional universe situated in some close proximity to ours, and because it is of a higher dimension, it's gravity pulls on our universe from all directions.
What a higher dimensional universe looks like, I haven't a clue. I understand that this is a vague explanation, and I haven't the knowledge to explain any sort of math that would support this. Calculus 3 is all I've got under my belt, but I really would like to know what is wrong with this theory, as I'm sure there is a lot. And again, this was simply a thought that I had.
don't worry you have the best point of view possible when you wake up everyday telling yourself you know nothing. And none of us really do, but if we base our understanding on repeated observations in particular conditions, we can have scientific knowledge. Think of science as more of a "tool in the shed" rather than some kind of God like knowledge. You'll only be dissappointed if you think you'll understand everything.
But in regard to your multiverse explaination, in order for this dimesion to gravitationally interact, it would have to have proximity in 3D, which is impossible because it would need remain paralell to our co-ordinate system, thus in a state of intertia. And in essence, dark matter is something that doesnt produce a spectral line of EMR absorbtion nor emission, so by this we can only lead to the conclusion that it does NOT have atomic structure its existence, to some extent in space-time is proven by the magnitude of gravitational interaction with its surroundings. So also though we say "dark matter" we really mean "dark"=no interaction with light and "matter"=something that gravitionally interacts, having mass. So if you are going to propose a multiverse that somehow gravitionally interacts, it would need to do a step better than accounting the gravitional interaction which leads to the belief in dark matter.
any help?
But in regard to your multiverse explaination, in order for this dimesion to gravitationally interact, it would have to have proximity in 3D, which is impossible because it would need remain paralell to our co-ordinate system, thus in a state of intertia. And in essence, dark matter is something that doesnt produce a spectral line of EMR absorbtion nor emission, so by this we can only lead to the conclusion that it does NOT have atomic structure its existence, to some extent in space-time is proven by the magnitude of gravitational interaction with its surroundings. So also though we say "dark matter" we really mean "dark"=no interaction with light and "matter"=something that gravitionally interacts, having mass. So if you are going to propose a multiverse that somehow gravitionally interacts, it would need to do a step better than accounting the gravitional interaction which leads to the belief in dark matter.
any help?
OP was talking about Dark Energy and you (Adam) were on about Dark Matter. As far as I know they are different concepts.
Almost. But a few things.
A. You mention that a universe would have to remain parallel to our coordinate system. Youre saying that for any point on our universe, there would have to exist a point on the other universe that has the same normal vector? Assuming I understand what youre saying, then that would be assuming that both the universes were 3d, spatially. If the other universe had some higher dimension, could that not explain it being both parallel and maintaining a 3d proximity. (Im trying not to imply a universe within a universe, but i feel like i am. ) Like say you have a dimensionless point, and around it you have some 4D "sphere" (I don't know if such a thing has a name), could this 4D "sphere" exert a gravitational influence on the point in every direction with out the point "being inside of it"? If not, would there be any amount of dimensional difference that such a thing could be possible? and alternately, in a higher dimensional universe, could the higher dimension cause it to attain a... I'm not sure how I would word it, but in Quantum physics isn't there something that says that given the right conditions something can be in more than one place at once? Like the two slit experiment, with the electron? Quantum State?... And causing it to be all around us, without being all around us.
B. You said dark matter, I said dark energy. It was my understanding that dark energy "pushes" or maybe repels is a better word, where as dark matter has a negative gravitational effect? Am I wrong? Are the two the same?
C. I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. I was proposing an alternate explanation to the expansion of the universe, not the multiverse.
And also, I'm not trying to argue my "theory"'s plausibility. I'm just sharing my thoughts so that folks like yourself can tell me why wrong, not that I am simply am wrong, because I think I made it clear, that I assume that I'm wrong.
A. You mention that a universe would have to remain parallel to our coordinate system. Youre saying that for any point on our universe, there would have to exist a point on the other universe that has the same normal vector? Assuming I understand what youre saying, then that would be assuming that both the universes were 3d, spatially. If the other universe had some higher dimension, could that not explain it being both parallel and maintaining a 3d proximity. (Im trying not to imply a universe within a universe, but i feel like i am. ) Like say you have a dimensionless point, and around it you have some 4D "sphere" (I don't know if such a thing has a name), could this 4D "sphere" exert a gravitational influence on the point in every direction with out the point "being inside of it"? If not, would there be any amount of dimensional difference that such a thing could be possible? and alternately, in a higher dimensional universe, could the higher dimension cause it to attain a... I'm not sure how I would word it, but in Quantum physics isn't there something that says that given the right conditions something can be in more than one place at once? Like the two slit experiment, with the electron? Quantum State?... And causing it to be all around us, without being all around us.
B. You said dark matter, I said dark energy. It was my understanding that dark energy "pushes" or maybe repels is a better word, where as dark matter has a negative gravitational effect? Am I wrong? Are the two the same?
C. I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. I was proposing an alternate explanation to the expansion of the universe, not the multiverse.
And also, I'm not trying to argue my "theory"'s plausibility. I'm just sharing my thoughts so that folks like yourself can tell me why wrong, not that I am simply am wrong, because I think I made it clear, that I assume that I'm wrong.
Where I think they will say you're wrong is simply by using the definition of the word Universe (meaning as they say everything, so by implication there is nothing beyond it). But I always find any argument restricted by words alone surely is naive.
So whatever you say is beyond our dimension must still be part of the Universe by definition.
Your higher dimensional universe needs to be part of this Universe but out of sight. And then you might be onto something. Your "higher dimensional [levels of this] universe" then becomes the source of the Dark Energy.
So whatever you say is beyond our dimension must still be part of the Universe by definition.
QUOTE
My "theory" is this: It's not dark energy pushing our universe from within. It's another higher dimensional universe situated in some close proximity to ours, and because it is of a higher dimension, it's gravity pulls on our universe from all directions.
Your higher dimensional universe needs to be part of this Universe but out of sight. And then you might be onto something. Your "higher dimensional [levels of this] universe" then becomes the source of the Dark Energy.
QUOTE
Where I think they will say you're wrong is simply by using the definition of the word Universe (meaning as they say everything, so by implication there is nothing beyond it). But I always find any argument restricted by words alone surely is naive. So whatever you say is beyond our dimension must still be part of the Universe by definition.
Well, yes, but the theory of a multiverse replaces the concept that the word Universe implies something absolute. Furthermore, we can't say that one theory is disproven because of a contradicting theory. Sorry 'm not good at arguing logic. But maybe this example can illustrate what I'm trying to say. When people defined the Earth as being flat, and then it was proposed that Earth is round, the argument, "No the Earth can't be round, because we already defined it as being flat." Doesn't work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where I think they will say you're wrong is simply by using the definition of the word Universe (meaning as they say everything, so by implication there is nothing beyond it). But I always find any argument restricted by words alone surely is naive. So whatever you say is beyond our dimension must still be part of the Universe by definition. |
Well, yes, but the theory of a multiverse replaces the concept that the word Universe implies something absolute. Furthermore, we can't say that one theory is disproven because of a contradicting theory. Sorry 'm not good at arguing logic. But maybe this example can illustrate what I'm trying to say. When people defined the Earth as being flat, and then it was proposed that Earth is round, the argument, "No the Earth can't be round, because we already defined it as being flat." Doesn't work.
Your higher dimensional universe needs to be part of this Universe but out of sight. And then you might be onto something. Your "higher dimensional [levels of this] universe" then becomes the source of the Dark Energy.
That's not really what I was saying. So I wouldn't say that I may be onto something,.
But that is interesting, and actually I think that's what String Theory proposes? But smaller dimensions rather than higher dimensions.
QUOTE (hortino+May 9 2012, 05:10 AM)
Well, yes, but the theory of a multiverse replaces the concept that the word Universe implies something absolute. Furthermore, we can't say that one theory is disproven because of a contradicting theory. Sorry 'm not good at arguing logic. But maybe this example can illustrate what I'm trying to say. When people defined the Earth as being flat, and then it was proposed that Earth is round, the argument, "No the Earth can't be round, because we already defined it as being flat." Doesn't work.
That's not really what I was saying. So I wouldn't say that I may be onto something,.
But that is interesting, and actually I think that's what String Theory proposes? But smaller dimensions rather than higher dimensions. I don't think anyone on this forum accepts multiverses, but they all accept we are part of a universe. This Dark Energy affects all parts of the Universe so I was thinking it can't be another part of the multiverse which would more than likely be off to one or other side of our "universe", but if it was encompassing the Universe like a higher dimension could but it would also part of it. That is more logical in my mind at least.
I think you may under-estimate the amount of evidence there is for the Multiverse, but that's not to say that there is enough for the scientific community to accept. I guess it may be on the level of, "Yeah, that sounds really crazy, but I suppose it's possible."
I had a link here to a Ted Talk by Brian Green, but it won't let me post it. Basically he asks why is it that our universe is so finely tuned, and his explanation was the multiverse theory. He then goes on tying String Theory and the amount of Dark Energy present in the universe to the Multiverse theory.
Here is an example of a notable figure putting substantial merit into the Multiverse. It ties into String Theory, how, I'm not 100% sure, I have an idea but I'm not confident enough in it to try to explain it.
But you have indeed poked substantial hole in my theory, which is awesome, exactly what I was looking for. However, are you disagreeing on the basis that you don't accept the concept of the multiverse, or on the logic of some higher dimensional shape being able to take on the characteristics I gave it previously?
I had a link here to a Ted Talk by Brian Green, but it won't let me post it. Basically he asks why is it that our universe is so finely tuned, and his explanation was the multiverse theory. He then goes on tying String Theory and the amount of Dark Energy present in the universe to the Multiverse theory.
Here is an example of a notable figure putting substantial merit into the Multiverse. It ties into String Theory, how, I'm not 100% sure, I have an idea but I'm not confident enough in it to try to explain it.
But you have indeed poked substantial hole in my theory, which is awesome, exactly what I was looking for. However, are you disagreeing on the basis that you don't accept the concept of the multiverse, or on the logic of some higher dimensional shape being able to take on the characteristics I gave it previously?
on the basis that we have no need for a multiverse theory to account for something we know to gravitationally interact (dark matter) since what we define as mass already carries this property. Blackholes on the otherhand, well and truly require more than 4 dimensions to account for.
Again, you said dark matter. Is that not a different concept than dark energy?
I'm very much aware that the existence of a multiverse would in no way, at least in the context of my explanation, explain the workings of dark matter.
I don't mean to instigate anything, but you're asserting that I'm wrong based on an argument that I'm not making, but that's not to say that I disagree that I'm wrong. I'm simply in search of WHY I'm wrong. And being that I didn't try to explain the actions of dark matter, you haven't really told me how I am wrong.
I'm very much aware that the existence of a multiverse would in no way, at least in the context of my explanation, explain the workings of dark matter.
I don't mean to instigate anything, but you're asserting that I'm wrong based on an argument that I'm not making, but that's not to say that I disagree that I'm wrong. I'm simply in search of WHY I'm wrong. And being that I didn't try to explain the actions of dark matter, you haven't really told me how I am wrong.
QUOTE (hortino+May 9 2012, 09:51 AM)
I think you may under-estimate the amount of evidence there is for the Multiverse, but that's not to say that there is enough for the scientific community to accept.
Which evidence would that be? I'm not aware of any evidence, beyond purely mathematical speculations, which certainly is in now way any kind of evidence.
I always wonder what is meant by this "finely tuned" argument.
I have two thoughts on that:
1. Either there is nothing special about our universe and this "finely tuned" thing is just something that is needed to be speculated about in order to lend argument to an non-existing explanation.
2. Or the reason why it is "finely tuned" is, because this is one configuration that works, and if it were tuned otherwise, we wouldn't be here to observe it, or would wonder about a totaly different "finely tuned" universe.
Kind of similar to "Why have *I* been choosen to be the winner of the lottery out of 80Mio Poeple participating?" Well, sometimes the answer is as simple as "because it hits *somebody* sometime and it happend to be me". Nothing special to see there.
I always wonder what is meant by this "finely tuned" argument.
I have two thoughts on that:
1. Either there is nothing special about our universe and this "finely tuned" thing is just something that is needed to be speculated about in order to lend argument to an non-existing explanation.
2. Or the reason why it is "finely tuned" is, because this is one configuration that works, and if it were tuned otherwise, we wouldn't be here to observe it, or would wonder about a totaly different "finely tuned" universe.
Kind of similar to "Why have *I* been choosen to be the winner of the lottery out of 80Mio Poeple participating?" Well, sometimes the answer is as simple as "because it hits *somebody* sometime and it happend to be me". Nothing special to see there.
Here is an example of a notable figure putting substantial merit into the Multiverse. It ties into String Theory, how, I'm not 100% sure, I have an idea but I'm not confident enough in it to try to explain it.
There is a lot that ties in the String Theory, but unless the ST hasn't been proven to some extent, it is a waste of time (in my opinion) to try to explain something with it. So far ST seems more like a scientific religion to me.
Ah ha, So where I'm mistaken is that I had attributed the the actual expansion to the presence of Dark Energy, when its actually, just the Big Bang?
And about this cosmological constant, are you referring to the one associated with the amount of dark energy needed in order to produce the acceleration? The video I mentioned earlier addresses this number, and how they can't seem to find any other physical law that it shows up, and that's where he tags it to a multiverse theory, but I'm beginning to have the feeling, some thanks to you all here, that since the proposal of the multiverse anytime we can't explain something they blame it on the multiverse.
And thank you waitedavid, was exactly what the kind of answer I was hoping for.
Have you heard of gravity?
The Universe is 3 dimensional so I don't quite like the balloon analogy.
Which evidence would that be? I'm not aware of any evidence, beyond purely mathematical speculations, which certainly is in now way any kind of evidence.
QUOTE
I had a link here to a Ted Talk by Brian Green, but it won't let me post it. Basically he asks why is it that our universe is so finely tuned, and his explanation was the multiverse theory.
I always wonder what is meant by this "finely tuned" argument.
I have two thoughts on that:
1. Either there is nothing special about our universe and this "finely tuned" thing is just something that is needed to be speculated about in order to lend argument to an non-existing explanation.
2. Or the reason why it is "finely tuned" is, because this is one configuration that works, and if it were tuned otherwise, we wouldn't be here to observe it, or would wonder about a totaly different "finely tuned" universe.
Kind of similar to "Why have *I* been choosen to be the winner of the lottery out of 80Mio Poeple participating?" Well, sometimes the answer is as simple as "because it hits *somebody* sometime and it happend to be me". Nothing special to see there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I had a link here to a Ted Talk by Brian Green, but it won't let me post it. Basically he asks why is it that our universe is so finely tuned, and his explanation was the multiverse theory. |
I always wonder what is meant by this "finely tuned" argument.
I have two thoughts on that:
1. Either there is nothing special about our universe and this "finely tuned" thing is just something that is needed to be speculated about in order to lend argument to an non-existing explanation.
2. Or the reason why it is "finely tuned" is, because this is one configuration that works, and if it were tuned otherwise, we wouldn't be here to observe it, or would wonder about a totaly different "finely tuned" universe.
Kind of similar to "Why have *I* been choosen to be the winner of the lottery out of 80Mio Poeple participating?" Well, sometimes the answer is as simple as "because it hits *somebody* sometime and it happend to be me". Nothing special to see there.
Here is an example of a notable figure putting substantial merit into the Multiverse. It ties into String Theory, how, I'm not 100% sure, I have an idea but I'm not confident enough in it to try to explain it.
There is a lot that ties in the String Theory, but unless the ST hasn't been proven to some extent, it is a waste of time (in my opinion) to try to explain something with it. So far ST seems more like a scientific religion to me.
QUOTE (hortino+May 8 2012, 06:31 PM)
First, I'd like to clarify that I'm in no way a physicist, not yet, anyway. I'm merely a young college student fascinated by all things..."big-picture" physics, for lack of a better word. As such, my scope is very narrow, and my understanding, limited. That being said, the following, "theory," or thought, is probably a better word for it, likely holds no water or, is in no way plausible due to some physical law I'm not aware of. So please be gentle when you poke holes in this.
Also, I don't realistically believe this.
We attribute the expansion of the universe to dark energy, but what if there isn't actually any dark energy? What if we are actually part of a multiverse, and to my understanding, a multiverse implies that all possible configurations of a universe are recognized. So what if this means that not only are there universes out there with different physical laws than ours, but also universes with higher dimensions as well?
My "theory" is this: It's not dark energy pushing our universe from within. It's another higher dimensional universe situated in some close proximity to ours, and because it is of a higher dimension, it's gravity pulls on our universe from all directions.
What a higher dimensional universe looks like, I haven't a clue. I understand that this is a vague explanation, and I haven't the knowledge to explain any sort of math that would support this. Calculus 3 is all I've got under my belt, but I really would like to know what is wrong with this theory, as I'm sure there is a lot. And again, this was simply a thought that I had.
Really dark energy isn't responsible for "expansion". The cosmological constant people refer to as dark energy is responsible for positive "acceleration" of the expansion. That what is responsible for the existence of a nonzero cosmological constant could be something extra dimensional would be interesting, but I doubt this will be the case.
If you consider a two dimensional shell of matter embedded in 3 dimensional space and Newtonian physics for a moment, and you find that it is accelerating in expansion, then because of gausses law it must be because of a reaction to something contained inside the shell, or attached to the surface, and not outside. I would think that the analogy to a universe with accelerated expansion with three spatial dimensions embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime would be that either the cosmological constant is due to stuff attached to the 3d space or that its attributed to something thats not uniform in the higher dimensional space being inside the embedding and not outside. If this is the case then first you would have to demonstrate that something physical actually exists associated with the higher dimensional space in which we are embedded and then you would have to demonstrate that such a thing can be distributed in such a nonuniform way or that gauss's law doesn't apply and then you'd have to demonstrate that the reaction to it accounts for the cosmological constant.
Maybe, but it seems a bit far fetched to me.
Then again there are a lot of string proponents out there and that seems far fetched to me too.
Also, I don't realistically believe this.
We attribute the expansion of the universe to dark energy, but what if there isn't actually any dark energy? What if we are actually part of a multiverse, and to my understanding, a multiverse implies that all possible configurations of a universe are recognized. So what if this means that not only are there universes out there with different physical laws than ours, but also universes with higher dimensions as well?
My "theory" is this: It's not dark energy pushing our universe from within. It's another higher dimensional universe situated in some close proximity to ours, and because it is of a higher dimension, it's gravity pulls on our universe from all directions.
What a higher dimensional universe looks like, I haven't a clue. I understand that this is a vague explanation, and I haven't the knowledge to explain any sort of math that would support this. Calculus 3 is all I've got under my belt, but I really would like to know what is wrong with this theory, as I'm sure there is a lot. And again, this was simply a thought that I had.
Really dark energy isn't responsible for "expansion". The cosmological constant people refer to as dark energy is responsible for positive "acceleration" of the expansion. That what is responsible for the existence of a nonzero cosmological constant could be something extra dimensional would be interesting, but I doubt this will be the case.
If you consider a two dimensional shell of matter embedded in 3 dimensional space and Newtonian physics for a moment, and you find that it is accelerating in expansion, then because of gausses law it must be because of a reaction to something contained inside the shell, or attached to the surface, and not outside. I would think that the analogy to a universe with accelerated expansion with three spatial dimensions embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime would be that either the cosmological constant is due to stuff attached to the 3d space or that its attributed to something thats not uniform in the higher dimensional space being inside the embedding and not outside. If this is the case then first you would have to demonstrate that something physical actually exists associated with the higher dimensional space in which we are embedded and then you would have to demonstrate that such a thing can be distributed in such a nonuniform way or that gauss's law doesn't apply and then you'd have to demonstrate that the reaction to it accounts for the cosmological constant.
Maybe, but it seems a bit far fetched to me.
Then again there are a lot of string proponents out there and that seems far fetched to me too.
QUOTE
Really dark energy isn't responsible for "expansion". The cosmological constant people refer to as dark energy is responsible for positive "acceleration" of the expansion. That what is responsible for the existence of a nonzero cosmological constant could be something extra dimensional would be interesting, but I doubt this will be the case. If you consider a two dimensional shell of matter embedded in 3 dimensional space and Newtonian physics for a moment, and you find that it is accelerating in expansion, then because of gausses law it must be because of a reaction to something contained inside the shell, or attached to the surface, and not outside. I would think that the analogy to a universe with accelerated expansion with three spatial dimensions embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime would be that either the cosmological constant is due to stuff attached to the 3d space or that its attributed to something thats not uniform in the higher dimensional space being inside the embedding and not outside. If this is the case then first you would have to demonstrate that something physical actually exists associated with the higher dimensional space in which we are embedded and then you would have to demonstrate that such a thing can be distributed in such a nonuniform way or that gauss's law doesn't apply and then you'd have to demonstrate that the reaction to it accounts for the cosmological constant. Maybe, but it seems a bit far fetched to me. Then again there are a lot of string proponents out there and that seems far fetched to me too.
Ah ha, So where I'm mistaken is that I had attributed the the actual expansion to the presence of Dark Energy, when its actually, just the Big Bang?
And about this cosmological constant, are you referring to the one associated with the amount of dark energy needed in order to produce the acceleration? The video I mentioned earlier addresses this number, and how they can't seem to find any other physical law that it shows up, and that's where he tags it to a multiverse theory, but I'm beginning to have the feeling, some thanks to you all here, that since the proposal of the multiverse anytime we can't explain something they blame it on the multiverse.
And thank you waitedavid, was exactly what the kind of answer I was hoping for.
QUOTE (hortino+May 10 2012, 12:57 AM)
Ah OK, so the actual expansion is due to what? Just the big bang? And the dark energy is only accelerating it.
my thought was that the expansion is a pushing force generated from the unraveling of matter itself
like E = M C^2 so matter decays back to energy and acts on the residual mass pushing it in the direction it already is going.
A bit like Hawking Radiation evaporating a Black Hole; this Dark Energy is the "vapour" coming off matter.
It only happens when it is out of reach from other galactic gravitational fields.
Just a silly thought - no science to back it up.
my thought was that the expansion is a pushing force generated from the unraveling of matter itself
like E = M C^2 so matter decays back to energy and acts on the residual mass pushing it in the direction it already is going.
A bit like Hawking Radiation evaporating a Black Hole; this Dark Energy is the "vapour" coming off matter.
It only happens when it is out of reach from other galactic gravitational fields.
Just a silly thought - no science to back it up.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 10 2012, 01:06 AM)
my thought was that the expansion is a pushing force generated from the unraveling of matter itself
like E = M C^2 so matter decays back to energy and acts on the residual mass pushing it in the direction it already is going.
A bit like Hawking Radiation evaporating a Black Hole; this Dark Energy is the "vapour" coming off matter.
It only happens when it is out of reach from other galactic gravitational fields.
Just a silly thought - no science to back it up.
I was trying to understand what this would mean for if there was a push there is a reaction, and what was it going to react against? (For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction). So could these forces be pushing against space and making it expand, for expansion of space is not just the matter traveling through space but it was space expanding and hence taking the matter with it? I thinking is an analogy like sago when left in water it swells so the core of the grains are getting further apart from each other.
That would mean space resists being pushed together and hence the whole thing expands.
Like if you can expand space can you also compress it?
like E = M C^2 so matter decays back to energy and acts on the residual mass pushing it in the direction it already is going.
A bit like Hawking Radiation evaporating a Black Hole; this Dark Energy is the "vapour" coming off matter.
It only happens when it is out of reach from other galactic gravitational fields.
Just a silly thought - no science to back it up.
I was trying to understand what this would mean for if there was a push there is a reaction, and what was it going to react against? (For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction). So could these forces be pushing against space and making it expand, for expansion of space is not just the matter traveling through space but it was space expanding and hence taking the matter with it? I thinking is an analogy like sago when left in water it swells so the core of the grains are getting further apart from each other.
That would mean space resists being pushed together and hence the whole thing expands.
Like if you can expand space can you also compress it?
An analogy that I heard was when you blow up a balloon any two points on its surface get further and further apart.
I think idea of Dark Energy is it is what is keeping our universe from collapsing back on its self. Like if we had less Dark Energy in our universe, once the initial expansion from the Big Bang was done, then the universe would begin to shrink back on itself. I think this was what was thought would happen before they discovered that the expansion was actually accelerating. I think they called it repulsive gravity? So, my understanding is that is Dark Energy is what is "resisting" some in ward force. What would be the force working against Dark Energy?
I think idea of Dark Energy is it is what is keeping our universe from collapsing back on its self. Like if we had less Dark Energy in our universe, once the initial expansion from the Big Bang was done, then the universe would begin to shrink back on itself. I think this was what was thought would happen before they discovered that the expansion was actually accelerating. I think they called it repulsive gravity? So, my understanding is that is Dark Energy is what is "resisting" some in ward force. What would be the force working against Dark Energy?
QUOTE
What would be the force working against Dark Energy?
Have you heard of gravity?
The Universe is 3 dimensional so I don't quite like the balloon analogy.
Ok, so if you take away the Dark Energy, it would be gravity that would "pull" space back in on itself? I'm just having a hard time visualizing it. Gravity working in a way that would work against the expansion.
QUOTE (hortino+May 10 2012, 10:48 PM)
Ok, so if you take away the Dark Energy, it would be gravity that would "pull" space back in on itself? I'm just having a hard time visualizing it. Gravity working in a way that would work against the expansion.
What if space is but a temporary phenomenon. Remove the matter and the space would just disappear. So if gravity collapsed the Universe the space it once occupied would just fade away. Anything I'm proposing is just thoughts and not based on extensive reading so I'm just exploring ideas OK.
It seems to come from nothing so why can't it just disappear?
What if space is but a temporary phenomenon. Remove the matter and the space would just disappear. So if gravity collapsed the Universe the space it once occupied would just fade away. Anything I'm proposing is just thoughts and not based on extensive reading so I'm just exploring ideas OK.
It seems to come from nothing so why can't it just disappear?
Could you really say that it disappears though? Space is just nothing, right? So how can nothing disappear, or appear for that matter?
So basically what you're proposing is space as nothing but a "place-holder?"
So basically what you're proposing is space as nothing but a "place-holder?"
QUOTE (hortino+May 11 2012, 02:11 AM)
Could you really say that it disappears though? Space is just nothing, right? So how can nothing disappear, or appear for that matter?
So basically what you're proposing is space as nothing but a "place-holder?"
There is a difference between Space and no space. They tell me there is no space beyond the universe. It was brought out by Alex some months back. I had always thought space might just go on to infinity, but not according to him. So there is a difference but I'm just learning. So would that mean if there were multiverses they would have to be touching for they can't be separated by nothing!
So basically what you're proposing is space as nothing but a "place-holder?"
There is a difference between Space and no space. They tell me there is no space beyond the universe. It was brought out by Alex some months back. I had always thought space might just go on to infinity, but not according to him. So there is a difference but I'm just learning. So would that mean if there were multiverses they would have to be touching for they can't be separated by nothing!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.