Or so goes the theory...yet the space between us and the Sun isn't expanding.
Why is some space expanding, but not other space?!
Posted on 03/16/2006 11:31:54 AM PST by The_Victor
Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.
The discovery — which involves an analysis of variations in the brightness of microwave radiation — is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.
It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.
"It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing."
Brian Greene, a Columbia University physicist, said: "The observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning."
Researchers found the evidence for inflation by looking at a faint glow that permeates the universe. That glow, known as the cosmic microwave background, was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old — long after inflation had done its work.
But just as a fossil tells a paleontologist about long-extinct life, the pattern of light in the cosmic microwave background offers clues about what came before it. Of specific interest to physicists are subtle brightness variations that give images of the microwave background a lumpy appearance.
Physicists presented new measurements of those variations during a news conference at Princeton University. The measurements were made by a spaceborne instrument called the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe, or WMAP, launched by NASA in 2001.
Earlier studies of WMAP data have determined that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few hundred thousand years. WMAP also measured variations in the cosmic microwave background so huge that they stretch across the entire sky. Those earlier observations are strong indicators of inflation, but no smoking gun, said Turner, who was not involved in the research.
The new analysis looked at variations in the microwave background over smaller patches of sky — only billions of light-years across, instead of hundreds of billions.
Without inflation, the brightness variations over small patches of the sky would be the same as those observed over larger areas of the heavens. But the researchers found considerable differences in the brightness variations.
"The data favors inflation," said Charles Bennett, a Johns Hopkins University physicist who announced the discovery. He was joined by two Princeton colleagues, Lyman Page and David Spergel, who also contributed to the research.
Bennett added: "It amazes me that we can say anything at all about what transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe."
The physicists said small lumps in the microwave background began during inflation. Those lumps eventually coalesced into stars, galaxies and planets.
The measurements are scheduled to be published in a future issue of the Astrophysical Journal.
"In contrast, I gave you a more simple, non-mathematical analogy to arrive at the same point. Yet if you can't understand that textual explanation, then there is no chance that you could understand the more complicated math behind it."
Actually, what you gave me was a textual explanation that was incorrect and made assumptions that are incorrect. Based on that, I asked for further information. You seem unwilling to provide it, and that's just fine.
As for what math I can and cannot understand, you have no idea. I do understand that you're conflating the concept of space with the concept of matter. If that extends to the rest of your idea, then you'll be wrong.
There have been several things written in this thread that indicate a lack of understanding of what's being discussed. Your posts are among those.
I'm not sure why you consider me a biased source, but never mind.
Or so goes the theory...yet the space between us and the Sun isn't expanding.
Why is some space expanding, but not other space?!
It's like blowing up a balloon. If you put dots with a marker on the surface and then blow it up, the distance between the dots increases as the balloon expands, even though the dots don't move. The massless fabric of space expands, the mass doesn't move.
We all know what you are referring to, but we also know what we are referring to.
"[ The answer is: It's turtles all the way down. ]
All the way down to what?.."
Not really...Sally has a chance to play the part of the airship Hindenberg in full size in a forthcoming Hollyweird movie and must expand a great deal more to satisfy producer Rob Whiner, otherwise known as Meathead.
A few more things before I go. I favor String Theory. I'm well aware that it is not yet conclusive (and may never be, if it's wrong, obviously) and that there isn't unanimity with regard to it in the physics community. However, at this time it's the only viable hypothesis for a Theory of Everything, so until something better (or even remotely equivalent) comes along, so far as I'm concerned that's where the action is at.
And, moreover, it's perfectly fine by me if you want to preemptively reject it. Like I said above, reality is not contingent on personal preferences. Whenever someone brilliant enough comes along to solve the mathematics of String Theory, then we will be able to test it within the empirical world so far as we can observe it. Either it will hold up, or it won't. If it holds up so far as anything we can see, then it will be validated for all practical intents and purposes. If it doesn't, then it's simply back to the drawing board.
And as my posts above should've made clear, I haven't the slightest problem with the answer "we don't know" when we don't know. It's always better to know than to not know, but when one does not know it's better to know that one doesn't know than to fantasize that one knows. And that's my final answer!
So you claim...yet you can't specify any one part of my textual explanation that was in error...you can just make a broad claim (ala the Austrian Emperor to Mozart with "too many notes" as his reason for disliking the opera).
Or so goes the theory...yet the space between us and the Sun isn't expanding.
Of course it is, yet we stay the same distance because we are bound by gravity.
ALL space is expanding.
Darn! I was about to say, "Well, I guess that settles that," but I see you essentially beat me to it.
LOL - well, not quite that bad!
If by "action" you mean money and effort, then sure, String Theory has that going for it (though a collossal waste of resources).
But string theory is attempting to envision a model in which Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory are both correct...even though those two theories are mutually exclusive (e.g. infinite gravity everywhere due to infinite energy being everywhere - can't happen).
That's a giant waste of time. QM might be right. GR might be right. But not both. Although both theories could be wrong.
They can't both be right. String Theory wants both to be right; won't happen. This is why String Theory math can frequently turn up "negative one dimensions." It's why String theory keeps needing new mathematical dimensions (that don't exist).
Little dimensions aren't hiding, all curled up.
Ok, it's clear that you do not understand the difference between space and matter. Yes, space is expanding. Yes, the solar system is relatively static. The force that hold the bodies of the solar system is strong enough to hold them together, despite the expansion of the fabric of space.
This is where you err, you see. Our solar system is moving within our local galaxy, which is, in turn, moving within the local galactic cluster, which is moving, in turn, in relationship to other galactic clusters.
All of this is happening in an expanding space. The interaction between space itself and matter is not clearly defined, but it is a relatively weak force, compared to the gravitational force.
So, your example of an expanding space, contrasted to a (relatively) static local arrangement of matter, is irrelevant. The gravitational force is what keeps matter relatively static in local groupings, while space expands willy-nilly, as it were.
So why isn't all mass still inside the space of a marble?
"So why isn't all mass still inside the space of a marble?"
We don't know the answer to that question, although there's certainly a lot of energy being expended trying to understand it.
There are a lot of questions for which we do not have definitive answers. That's what makes it all so interesting.
Crystal.
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.