Posted on 07/08/2019 12:00:21 PM PDT by ETL
It was much smaller back then..................
“I always thought the universe went on forever...God can do ANYTHING!”
That’s the thing.
I can walk to the local park; drive to the East coast; fly to the West Coast, East Asia, Western Europe, the North/South Pole; hitch a ride to the Moon; send a probe to Mars or Jupiter or the edge of the Milky Way; dream of spending light years on a spaceship at warp speed visiting other solar systems; contemplate the meaning of Forever/ Infinity....
But, even with all the brain power at work, all the fancy telescopes, all the fancy formulas, with scientists belittling each other’s theories...
Nobody can tell me where space actually goes.
So, my question...”Where does space go?”
The lack of an answer, to me at least, proves the very existence of God.
Yes, thanks... I meant to 10^(-32). Otherwise, it wouldn’t seem so bizarre (unless you REALLY think in pure math).
But if we’re only talking about a grapefruit-sized universe, how does the inflationary theory explain away the universe being almost 4 times the radius of how far matter could travel at the speed of light.
According to Inflation Theory, the universe started out so insanely tiny, that even with a supposed expansion rate many many times the speed of light, it only grew to the size of a grapefruit during that supposed inflationary phase of the very very early universe ie, the first 10^ to a large minus number power.
And, again, with universal expansion, there is no problem with the speed of light, because it doesn't involve an object with mass actually traveling THROUGH space, but rather objects being carried away from every other object solely as a result of the space between them 'stretching' and expanding. However, this applies only to objects far enough away from each other such that gravitational attraction is superseded by universal expansion. Because there are some galaxies, and groups of galaxies, that are actually moving towards each other due to their gravitational proximity. For instance, the humongous "nearby" (2.3 million light-years distant) Andromeda Galaxy is actually moving *towards* our Milky Way galaxy and is expected to 'mingle'(collide?) with it in roughly 4 or 5 billion years from now.
Einstein's thing about objects (with mass, ie, darn near every object in the universe) not being able to be *accelerated* to the speed of light is due to the observed fact, that, as objects (with mass) are accelerated toward the unobtainable speed of light, their mass grows to infinity. This is why it gets increasingly harder to 'push' these objects faster as they move closer and closer to the universal speed limit of light. It would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate them to light speed. And there clearly is NOT an infinite amount of energy in the universe.
Issac Newton's rather simple (pre-Relativity) formula states that F=ma (F=force, m=mass, a=acceleration). In other words, it requires a force, the application of outside, additional energy, to move (accelerate) a mass-containing object.
Objects *without* mass, such as photons, and theoretical particles known as "tachyons", are not governed by the light speed rule. In fact, or actually, in THEORY, these particles are believed to *always* travel at precisely light speed, at least under normal conditions. Gravitons, too, the supposed massless 'carrier' of gravity, travels at precisely light speed.
Likewise, according to Relativity Theory, in addition to mass containing objects growing more and more massive as they are increasingly accelerated, as observed from an outside, assumed stationary observer's point of view (that observer's reality), the object increasingly shortens in length (in the direction of motion), AND the sense of time increasingly slows (again, from the viewpoint of an outside, assumed stationary, observer's frame of reference). Simply put, a moving clock appears to tick out time more and more slowly the faster and faster it moves by you. Same for its perceived mass and its length. And this is not just about "perceptions", but rather distinctly different *realities*, based upon the relative state of motion between two or more different observers (frames of reference).
Photons are light.
I don't believe that is true.
In order for light to be affected by gravity wells, gravity must travel faster than light.
If, in fact, gravity travels at all. It's kinda like saying magnetism travels. It's just a static field that gets weaker with distance.
These particles are bundles of energy (quanta) of a particular kind of field.
There is one kind of field for every type of elementary particle.
For instance, there is an electromagnetic field whose quanta are photons.[1]
The force carrier particles that mediate the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions are called gauge bosons.”
________________________
“Gravity is not a part of the Standard Model, but it is thought that there may be particles called gravitons which are the excitations of gravitational waves.
The status of this particle is still tentative, because the theory is incomplete and because the interactions of single gravitons may be too weak to be detected.[2]”
What happens when one turns on an electromagnet? Surely the force travels from one point to another.
Or when two enormously massive objects such as neutron stars or black holes collide. Prior to the collision, their gravitational fields are different than they are afterwards, and the newly created combined effect is propagated outward into space.
Terminology that indicates no proof, but a strong belief. That's fine. But it hasn't been measured, has it?
Or when two enormously massive objects such as neutron stars or black holes collide.
A black hole collision has not been seen (as far as I know), so you are basing this statement upon models (I assume) which are inherently flawed since they are based on the developer's biases and data.
Tell me--how does a "graviton" particle that is traveling away from the source object actually attract another object towards the source object?
I have no doubt the universe is expanding, but the question remains:
EXPANDING INTO WHAT????
For something to expand, there has to be a container for it to expand into.
And if there is something for it to expand into, isn’t THAT THING then also part of the universe?
The most common approximation method that physicists use for scattering calculations can be interpreted as static forces arising from the interactions between two bodies mediated by virtual particles, particles that exist for only a short time determined by the uncertainty principle.[1]
The virtual particles, also known as force carriers, are bosons, with different bosons associated with each force.[2]
The virtual-particle description of static forces is capable of identifying the spatial form of the forces, such as the inverse-square behavior in Newton’s law of universal gravitation and in Coulomb’s law. It is also able to predict whether the forces are attractive or repulsive for like bodies.
The path integral formulation is the natural language for describing force carriers. This article uses the path integral formulation to describe the force carriers for spin 0, 1, and 2 fields.
Pions, photons, and gravitons fall into these respective categories.
There are limits to the validity of the virtual particle picture.
The virtual-particle formulation is derived from a method known as perturbation theory which is an approximation assuming interactions are not too strong, and was intended for scattering problems, not bound states such as atoms.
For the strong force binding quarks into nucleons at low energies, perturbation theory has never been shown to yield results in accord with experiments,[3] thus, the validity of the “force-mediating particle” picture is questionable.
Similarly, for bound states the method fails.[4]
In these cases the physical interpretation must be re-examined.
As an example, the calculations of atomic structure in atomic physics or of molecular structure in quantum chemistry could not easily be repeated, if at all, using the “force-mediating particle” picture.[citation needed]
The “force-mediating particle” picture (FMPP) is used because the classical two-body interaction (Coulomb’s law for example), depending on six spatial dimensions, is incompatible with the Lorentz invariance of Dirac’s equation.
The use of the FMPP is unnecessary in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, and Coulomb’s law is used as given in atomic physics and quantum chemistry to calculate both bound and scattering states.
A non-perturbative relativistic quantum theory, in which Lorentz invariance is preserved, is achievable by evaluating Coulomb’s law as a 4-space interaction using the 3-space position vector of a reference electron obeying Dirac’s equation and the quantum trajectory of a second electron which depends only on the scaled time.
The quantum trajectory of each electron in an ensemble is inferred from the Dirac current for each electron by setting it equal to a velocity field times a quantum density, calculating a position field from the time integral of the velocity field, and finally calculating a quantum trajectory from the expectation value of the position field.
The quantum trajectories are of course spin dependent, and the theory can be validated by checking that Pauli’s Exclusion Principle is obeyed for a collection of fermions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_forces_and_virtual-particle_exchange
Thanks for the link...
“In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity.
There is no complete quantum field theory of gravitons due to an outstanding mathematical problem with renormalization in general relativity.
In string theory, believed to be a consistent theory of quantum gravity, the graviton is a massless state of a fundamental string.
If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless because the gravitational force is very long range and appears to propagate at the speed of light.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
OK, a lot of this stuff I know, but I want to be super clear on one point:
You are saying that points on opposite sides of the “grapefruit”-sized universe ended up traveling from each other at a speed of almost four times the speed of light, and that this was possible because they didn’t need to accelerate to that speed through the expenditure of force, nor did they move THROUGH space, but rather the space they occupied merely expanded at that speed?
>> And if there is something for it to expand into, isn’t THAT THING then also part of the universe? <<
Nope. You’re arguing that there is time-space outside the universe through which the universe’s edges are traveling. There just isn’t. Your understandings are based on your perceptions, which are systematically expressed in Euclid’s geometry: such notions that parallel lines never intersect, etc. You hear that the universe is spherical, and you suppose that you can draw a line through it, extending out from it in two places, and that there is an “edge” of the universe between these two places that forms the shape of an arc.
But time-space on the humongous scale doesn’t obey Euclidean geometry: a straight line extended forever never “escapes” the universe, and there is no “edge” to the universe; there is only a place at which you are at the center of a grapefruit-sized universe once again.
People stretch out a lot when it comes to defending the big bang.
“Although the universe has been expanding since the initial Big Bang, inflation refers to the hypothesis that, for a very short time, the universe expanded at a sharply INCREASED rate, rather than at the decreasing rate it followed before inflation and has followed since [until it, for some reason, several billion years later, apparently began accelerating again! -etl].
By some calculations, inflation increased the size of the universe by a factor of around 10^26 [10 followed by 26 zeros!-etl] during that tiny fraction of a second (far less than a trillionth of a second), expanding it from [way] smaller than the size of a proton to about the size of a grapefruit.”
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_inflation.html
“According to the theory of inflation, the Universe grew by a factor of 10 to the sixtieth power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds.
So the “edges” of the Universe were expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light”
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_inflation.html
-snip-
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt.
But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics.
In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back.
Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers:
“The cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened.
Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.”
And it’s even worse, they argue, inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
That’s the thing isn’t it? Even if there was an end to outer space...what’s after that? You can’t just say that outer space ends RIGHT HERE at this LINE, because then someone could step over that line. Even if it’s nothing...nothing is still something. Just frustrating to think about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.