Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New cosmology model without a Big Bang
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 8 of 25 (759129)
06-09-2015 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mikechell
06-09-2015 7:52 AM


Re: no other place to postulate ...
Why do we see all galaxies moving away from us? If we say the observable universe's age is limited by the radius of our view, isn't this heliocentric?
It would seem that way, yes. But no matter where you are in our visible universe, our Hubble Bubble, you would see the same thing. A few billion galaxies to the left of us sees themselves as the "center" of the expansion as well.
Shouldn't all the galaxies on one side of be moving with us as we all expand away from the true center of the big bang?
Except there is no "true center" of the big bang. Or, more accurately, every point in space is the center of the big bang.
There is an old analogy that is a bit tired but still works. Take a deflated balloon, put dots all over it, blow it up. Each dot moves away from every other dot. The further the dots are away from each other the faster the separation. No dot, and yet each dot, appears to be the center of expansion.
This is only an analogy and some try to take it too literally by pointing to the center of the inside of the balloon volume. In the analogy only the surface of the balloon is meant to be our universe. Ignore the interior.
the only way that all teh galaxies would seem to be moving away is if we are only observing a very small percentage of the total universe. Our observable pocket could be just a fraction of a percent of the true size of the cosmos.
That is the leading explanation. Our "observable universe," our Hubble Bubble, is about 48+- billion light years in radius. With the present expansion of the universe, every galaxy outside this distance is moving away at faster than light and we will never see them. Note: these far out galaxies are not moving through space at those speeds but the intervening space itself is expanding so there is no violation of relativity.
We may be seeing our visible universe as a bubble sunk in the Pacific Ocean.
Here is a write up that may help confuse matters even more.
Edited by AZPaul3, : added site

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 7:52 AM mikechell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 9:38 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 11 of 25 (759142)
06-09-2015 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mikechell
06-09-2015 9:38 AM


Re: no other place to postulate ...
I cannot grasp the "every point is the center" proposition.
I know the feeling. It took me decades to get my mind around the concept.
Two points may help.
First, everywhere we look we see the same thing. The further out we look the faster those galaxies move away from us. The phenomenon is consistent no matter what direction we look (except our gravitational-bound local group). (homogeneous feature)
Second, consistent with the cosmological principle, every galaxy we see out there will see us in exactly the same way. Everywhere they look they see the same thing. The further out they look the faster those galaxies move away from them. The phenomenon is consistent no matter what direction they look. (isotropic feature)
If what we see makes us the "center" then what they see makes them the center. Everywhere can be said to be the center, thus, there is no center.
But there still should be an epicenter. There should still be a point that it essentially motionless.
There can be no such thing as "motionless" since motion is relative to the coordinate system of a preferred frame of reference. There is no way to determine a static coordinate system universal to all such frames of reference. No luminiferous aether. No static scale to the cosmic microwave background.
What if we ARE on the surface of a balloon that is expanding outwards from a central point?
That is the mind trap in taking an analogy too literally. The central point of the blown-up balloon does not correspond to any real structure in the analogy. It isn't there. Neither is the mouthpiece. Just the outer surface of the balloon. No inside, no blow hole, no "thickness" to the balloon skin. None of these other real attributes of a real balloon apply to the analogy.
It's just a thought experiment I've had that intrigues me.
Though the evidence of the homogeneous and isotropic nature we see in the visible universe does not support this view, our view is limited to what we can see and measure. Outside that, on a more massive scale beyond our view, you might be right, but we will never know.
[abe - added by edit]
Excuse my social faux pas. I forgot to welcome you to EvC.
So, like, welcome to Evc, mikechell!
As for the quote blocks you see in messages, hit the "peek" button on any message to see how that is done.
Edited by AZPaul3, : welcome

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 9:38 AM mikechell has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 16 of 25 (759168)
06-09-2015 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mikechell
06-09-2015 10:28 AM


Re: no other place to postulate ...
Theoretical mathematics postulates ... what are they up to, 11 dimensions?
You just hit a big red hot button.
So, just because we can't imagine the dimensions doesn't mean they can't or don't exist.
It also doesn’t mean that they can and do exist.
The rest of this is (somewhat) off-topic.
Theodor Kaluza took the equations of General Relativity and, as an intellectual exercise, manipulated them in a 5d spacetime. To his surprise his manipulations turned up equations that mimicked Maxwell’s differential equations. Since GR is the general state of SR and SR is a more robust and exact follow-on of Maxwell hindsight says this should not be all that surprising, but it was a big hit at the time and then was promptly forgotten.
Along come string theory, which isn’t a theory at all, and in order to get the equations of the vibrating strings to mimic the quantum values of the standard model of particles, which they wouldn’t do in 4d spacetime, string theorists took a page from Kaluza and added more and more dimensions for the strings to vibrate in to get the numbers to come out right.
First, since the strings are speculated to be planck-sized objects there is no known, nor even reasonably speculated, way to detect their existence. Second, the shapes of the extra dimensions vary greatly and the shape to be chosen in any working of the string equations must be chosen carefully to achieve the desired results. The extra dimensions and their shapes do not flow naturally from any formulation of string equation. They must be chosen and forced upon the situation. To their benefit, if chosen appropriately, the equations do produce models roughly equivalent to the standard model of particles with the addition of a spin-2 particle for the graviton, as posited in Quantum Field Theory, and a whole slew of additional particles (supersymmetric particles) not known in the standard model.
None of these dimensions or particles from any of the complicated models from string theory (or, more accurately these days, M-theory) have been shown to be real. They may indeed be found in the new higher energies of the Large Hadron Collider, and if not it may be because the LHC is still under-powered to find them, but at present none of the predictions of M-theory has been verified.
The only reason M-theory has been elevated above speculation to hypothesis is because the math, even as complex as it presently is, can be manipulated to produce models of what we presently know to exist. By strict scientific standards M-theory is not a theory at all. None of its predictions have been verified.
Someone once said, Observation over theory. Except theory is a well-substantiated explanation based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. In science theory explains observation and experiment. M-theory does neither.
Still, we shall see.
[abe]
Just thought of something I said that may be misinterpreted.
"Observation over theory", mickechell, is correct. I did not mean to be seen as challenging that. If an observation conflicts with a theory, the observation wins. I just thought it was a nice segue into ending my personal rant.
Edited by AZPaul3, : clarify
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : spln

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 10:28 AM mikechell has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024