What exists beyond the known universe?

[lindagarrette]

Originally posted by: pie

 

If by chance the coin is flipped a hundred times and comes up 70% tails, the memory for the next hundred flips will favor 70% probibility for heads.

 

The coin will land on its head if circumstances favor that event. Probability is only useful with a large sample where all the variables cannot be determined. If you flip the coin exactly the same way in the exact same conditions, then the outcome will be exactly the same. If there is a single variable, the results could be entirely different. This is a way of explaining Chaos theory.

[BlameTheEx]

Sorry for taking so long to reply people.

 

 

Freethinker.

 

The balloon analogy is interesting but it begs this question. Is the matter in the universe expanding, or the space? The balloon analogy would suggest that this expansion is a property of space alone. Bits of matter remain at zero velocity relative to their local bit of space. This is fascinating. It implies that there is a genuine (local) zero velocity, which does not need to be measured in relation to other objects or observers. That would be one in the eye for Einstein, if I remember things correctly.

 

I am curious as to the nature. Does this mean that there is a force pulling objects and particles apart? Does it mean that objects and particles are getting bigger?

 

Once you conclude that the observed expansion is a property of space, there is another question. Is this expansion real or an equivalent, in the same way that gravity has the same effect as acceleration. As I sit here I feel exactly like I would if I was in space, and accelerating, but in truth I ain't going anywhere. Is it possible that all those red shifted galaxies are not going anywhere ether?

 

Uncle.

 

I think I cleared that up in point 2). Unless the bulk of dark matter is massively greater than that of the stars, It would just heat up till it re-radiated the light. There IS a background radiation that's equivalent to about 3 degrees absolute, but that would require vastly more dark matter than observed or predicted.

[Uncle Martin]

BlameTheEx,

I like your "outside the box" approach. Accepting the status quo prohibits advancement. How do you solve the dark sky at night paradox? You've presented several explanations for why the sky should be bright, but I find nothing explaining why it is dark, which I think we agree it is. My apologies if I missed something, I'd just like your take on this. TeleMad's explanation with a bit of googling satisfies my questions on this subject.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

 

The balloon analogy is interesting but it begs this question. Is the matter in the universe expanding, or the space?

What we know is that the matter in the universe is moving away from each other. e.g. stars from each other, galaxies from each other, ...

The balloon analogy would suggest that this expansion is a property of space alone. Bits of matter remain at zero velocity relative to their local bit of space. This is fascinating. It implies that there is a genuine (local) zero velocity, which does not need to be measured in relation to other objects or observers. That would be one in the eye for Einstein, if I remember things correctly.

It would mean that everything is RELATIVE. Which would seem to be something Einstein could RELATE to! :-) No matter how we construct the model, what we find in measurements is that celestial groups are moving away from each other. Which is stationary and which is "moving" is relative. Just as my model where my big toe is the center of our galaxy.

I am curious as to the nature. Does this mean that there is a force pulling objects and particles apart?

Pulling apart? Perhaps pushing apart? Dark matter seems to fit this model very nicely.

Does it mean that objects and particles are getting bigger?

As far as objects, at a local level gravity is a major force just as in the differences in QM and GR. Just as gravity pulls us as objects towards the earth, yet nuclear forces keep us from co-mingling with the earth itself.

 

As to particles, QM shows that we can not KNOW where a particle IS already. Is the distance between any two getting bigger than the distance we already don't KNOW?

Once you conclude that the observed expansion is a property of space, there is another question. Is this expansion real or an equivalent, in the same way that gravity has the same effect as acceleration. As I sit here I feel exactly like I would if I was in space, and accelerating, but in truth I ain't going anywhere. Is it possible that all those red shifted galaxies are not going anywhere ether?

They are moving away from each other. Are they "going somewhere"? if that "somewhere" was not there before (...the expansion into it), perhaps it can not be said they are "going somewhere".

 

Perhaps the biggest problem with this balloon concept is that it would indicate a "center" from which the expansion is taking place. Even if that "center" no longer "exists" as space has expanded out from it.

Unless the bulk of dark matter is massively greater than that of the stars,

That is the very premise for the existance of dark matter. That there is something with more total mass than all observable mass.

It would just heat up till it re-radiated the light. There IS a background radiation that's equivalent to about 3 degrees absolute, but that would require vastly more dark matter than observed or predicted.

That dark matter would absorb and thus re-radiate it would require than the dark matter had already been there and is being affected by the matter from the BB. As opposed to it being PART of the matter froom the BB. As part of the matter of the BB, it would not have started at a lower energy level to then absorb, but would have started at a higher energy level and we would be seeing it now at a lower level.

[BlameTheEx]

Uncle.

 

Sadly I have no firm conclusions as to the nature of the universe. In my mind the Big Bang theory is less than totally persuading due to the observation of extremely distant galaxies. They are rather older than expected. Also the hubble constant appears to be rather more constant than predicted.

 

All I attempted to do was argue against one possibility. A Big Bang composed of an explosion of matter in a universe, that is infinite both in size and time. The balloon version is more plausible, that of an expanding universe, of finite size, and curved. You could think of it as the surface of a 4 dimensional balloon, or possibly a 5 dimensional balloon, if the dimension of time is equally curved.

 

There are interesting observations for the balloon theory. First space itself has velocity, and that velocity is meaningful in that it drags its matter along with it. Also, by and large, most matter in the universe would be (in relativistic terms) close to zero velocity with respect to its local space. That would include the earth.

 

There are lots of variations possible for the balloon analogy.

 

1) The universes is not actually expanding, the red shift is due to a property of space. The only property I can think of that would cause such an effect is for zero velocity (i.e. the direction time travels in) is a function of position in the universe. ANY version of the balloon theory requires the concept of each position of space having its own velocity. The space expands, and the matter goes with it. It's not great leap to suppose that matter uses space not only as a reference for position, but also for the direction in which time runs. In fact, it is hard to escape this conclusion. Determine zero velocity, and you automatically determine the direction in which time runs.

 

2) The universe is expanding, but without any effect because everything inside it is expanding at the same rate. Presumably some property of space is changing to allow it to expand. It is quite feasible that this property not only determines the size of space, but also everything else in it. The result would be much like option 1.

 

3) The universe is expanding, and objects in it are not. This is the conventional theory. Galaxies will hold together, but the space between them will grow.

 

There are real differences between these options. Option 3 gives a fairly clear age to the universe. The other 2 would allow the universe to have been in existence indefinitely. Given that galaxies at the limits of current observation appear alarmingly older than option 3 would allow, the first 2 deserve consideration. However there is a big problem with them also. If the expansion is not real, or not effectively real, where is the energy going when light is red shifted? It gets worse. Unless I have got it wrong, matter consists of fundamental particles, that are standing waves, travelling (admittedly in circles) at the speed of light. They should loose energy at the same rate as light waves.

[TeleMad]

BlameTheEx: In my mind the Big Bang theory is less than totally persuading due to the observation of extremely distant galaxies. They are rather older than expected. Also ... 3) The universe is explanding, and objects in it are not. This is the conventional theory. Galaxies will hold together, but the space betweem them will grow. ... Given that alaxies at the limits of current observation appear alarmingly older than option 3 would allow...

 

I might have missed your support for this, but how are the galaxies at the limits of our current observation alarmingly older than we would expect from 3?

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

I hope my reply to Uncle clarified what I was getting at a little.

 

Regarding Dark Matter. I really meant a VAST amount. I was dismissing the idea that there was enough to absorb the output of all stars without rising more than 3 degrees absolute. Of course there is probably a lot more dark matter than directly observable matter, but nobody is expecting that much! Besides, you have a valid point. However the dark matter was created (I myself will not start with the assumption that the big bang actually happened), It was unlikely to be created at such a low temperature. However we look at it most of the heat that has ever been created has somehow been lost in space. It has been radiated, and is not currently reabsorbed by matter.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker

 

I hope my reply to Uncle clarified what I was getting at a little.

 

Yes it did help some. It would help even more if you resolved the issue that Telmad inquired about

Originally posted by: TeleMad

I might have missed your support for this, but how are the galaxies at the limits of our current observation alarmingly older than we would expect from 3?

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker.

 

Surely you dont expect me to reply to Telemad after his behavour in the last topic on gravity?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker.

Surely you dont expect me to reply to Telemad after his behavour in the last topic on gravity?

OK, pretend I asked it. I think it is a legitmate question based on your assertions. I would find your response of interest.

 

how are the galaxies at the limits of our current observation alarmingly older than we would expect from 3?

[Uncle Martin]

I second that request. I am interested also.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker, Uncle,

 

Ok. You hardly have to go far.

 

Look at http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34251

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker, Uncle,

 

Ok. You hardly have to go far.

OK, let's construct this one step at a time.

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

how are the galaxies at the limits of our current observation alarmingly older than we would expect from 3?

 

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

3) The universe is expanding, and objects in it are not. This is the conventional theory. Galaxies will hold together, but the space between them will grow.

 

together that would be:

 

how are the galaxies at the limits of our current observation alarmingly older than we would expect from The universe () expanding, and objects in it are not. This is the conventional theory. Galaxies will hold together, but the space between them will grow.

 

How does the site (here) that you suggest proves your point, prove your point?

 

I don't see it. It just says that we have found galaxies older than expected and we have to rethink how some galaxies might have formed. While the galxies are older than expected, why is it other than could be expecteedd becasue the "universe is expanding, and objects in it are not" I;m not seeing a causality.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker.

 

Well, your right. The conventional big bang theory is still in the running. It has just taken a bit of a beating, but there was never sufficient evidence to make it more than a contender.

 

The problem is that it gives a fairly accurate date to the beginning of the universe. The other possibilities I suggested do not. the light from these distant galaxies has taken so long to arrive that we should be seeing a very much younger universe, too young for galaxies of that size to have formed.

 

The method used to calculate the age of the universe (assuming the BB theory is correct) is so simple that it seems hard to get wrong. It should be as accurate as our measurement of the Hubbell constant. That is admittedly not very accurate, but sufficiently that these distant galaxies are surprising. Worse any inaccuracy in the Hubbell constant would be, to some extent, self correcting. If the constant is lower than expected, then the universe is older, but at the same time those galaxies must be further away than we expected, and also larger. This would be so as the red shift is being used to measure their distance. The larger they are, the longer they should have taken to form. The further away, the longer back in time we are looking.

 

By all appearances, ether the BB theory is wrong, or the current theories as to galaxy formation are wrong. That in my mind is sufficient inducement to start searching for alternative models for the universe. For that matter, I'm sure it's also a wake up call for those whose interest is galaxy formation theories.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Well, your right. The conventional big bang theory is still in the running. It has just taken a bit of a beating, but there was never sufficient evidence to make it more than a contender.

??? Contender?

 

That would assume that there are alternatives of equal or minimally close to equal.

 

Please show us ANY theory that is even CLOSE to being supported as well as the BB.

 

I tried to find a specific alternative in your posts. I find lots of complaints as to what YOU do not like about the BB, but I do not see anything that is presented as an alternative.

By all appearances, ether the BB theory is wrong, or the current theories as to galaxy formation are wrong.

And the 2nd one os the only reaction I have seen out of the SCIENTIFIC community RE the new info on older galaxies. Not a single one I have seen so far has even hinted that this might disprove the BB.

That in my mind is sufficient inducement to start searching for alternative models for the universe.

YOUR MIND, perhaps. But you have been against it for longer than this data has existed. and YOOU are not even close to being in a position of authority in these matters. Nor have you shown ANY credible scientists that support your side.

For that matter, I'm sure it's also a wake up call for those whose interest is galaxy formation theories.

I suggest you get your research paper peer review published ASAP so the entire rest of the Cosmological Physicists can benefit from your new insights. They seem to have missed this "obvious" wake up call.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker, Uncle,

 

Ok. You hardly have to go far.

 

Look at http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34251

 

That article says nothing about galaxies being older than the universe, only that galaxies seem to have formed earlier than previously thought. Which causes the scientists who performed the study to rethink the way galaxies form. Nothing revolutionary about it.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker.

 

"I suggest you get your research paper peer review published ASAP so the entire rest of the Cosmological Physicists can benefit from your new insights. They seem to have missed this "obvious" wake up call."

 

"YOUR MIND, perhaps. But you have been against it for longer than this data has existed. and YOOU are not even close to being in a position of authority in these matters. Nor have you shown ANY credible scientists that support your side."

 

Isn't it time you started living up to your name? Once again, instead of taking an interest in alternative idea's, you are resorting to ridicule. I despair of ever getting a proper debate from you.

 

Science is not all about support. Perhaps we could vote in a theory, like we do a government, but that won't make it right. There is admittedly, very little chance that any of my ideas will prove both original and correct, but all new ideas start with one person standing up and telling the world they are wrong! It is right and proper that such people do so, because, despite the fact that the vast majority of them will be mistaken, without them there is no progress. The reason there IS progress is because occasionally people listen and consider ideas on their merit, rather than their support.

 

I have no sure idea as to the nature of the universe, and have already admitted as much, However, unlike you, I am interested in free thinking. The conventional BB theory is supported by the Hubbell red shift, the 3K background radiation, and nothing more that I know about. That is not enough to exclude alternative theories, or variations of the BB theory. Are these forums not for such debates?

 

Tormod

 

"That article says nothing about galaxies being older than the universe"

 

Never said they are. I am just suggesting that the time scale for galaxy formation is more than a little tight. Surely its worth at least considering that the universe is a tad older than expected?