That's not a valid answer. He was explaining that *ALL* space was expanding, but not matter, yet he can't reconcile his explanation with all matter being inside the space of a marble originally.
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.
"It is not expanding into anything because as far as we know there is nothing other than the universe.
It is simply expanding to a bigger universe."
And what is that bigger universe expanding into? I'm beginning to feel like a who down in whoville! :)
"So why isn't all mass still inside the space of a marble?"
Because if space expanded around it what do you think would hold together that tremendous density and pressure?
Like a previous poster said the interaction between matter and space itself is not clearly defined. But, while weak, it does exist.
Since there is nothing other than the universe it is not expanding into anything.
It is simply expanding.
That's not a valid answer. He was explaining that *ALL* space was expanding, but not matter, yet he can't reconcile his explanation with all matter being inside the space of a marble originally.
"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?!"
Are we sure of that?
Consider: matter itself may all be expanding from within. The planet could be blowing up like a ball, and the gravity we feel is just riding the elevator up. In space, there might not BE gravity, just that things expand into each other.
Now, if he expansion occurs at a rate that matches the speed at which objects move relatively, then you wouldn't see it. A second ago doesn't exist anymore. The "grid" itself has been re-set.
If everything in atomic space - meaning matter itself - is expanding at 1/1 millionth of its size per second per second (a number picked to mean that the surface of the earth moves by 9.8 meters per second per second), everything remains the same size relative to everything else, and you wouldn't see anything.
Not that this is what's actually happening. It's just a fun mental model.
But truth is, we don't know if the space between us and the sun is expanding or not. We're not in the same piece of space from second to second anyway.
You are having a hird time understanding the concepts being discussed here. Nothing wrong with that, but it's true. I reccommend reading some Steven Hawking material. (Breif Hostory of time is a good starter)
Then why and how was this gravitational force overcome originally back when matter was even closer together than today?
Why isn't all of that matter "relatively static" in its original grouping?
I know the objections to String Theory and so far as I'm concerned they are a perfectly legitimate point of view (at least until you reach the part where you pretend the objections are conclusive). So, whenever (if ever) something better comes along then I'm all for it. But until then (if ever) then I am all for pursuing the only viable avenue of inquiry.
And, as I said, I favor String Theory, so that is why I am avoiding a full-blown debate on this, because I would have to explain String Theory in order to have the debate, and I sure don't have either the time or motivation to do that, even if I could do it adequately, and particularly when I know with absolute certainty that it would fall on deaf ears. So, what's the point of discussing it? My answers to your questions would be that String Theory is the most viable explanation, so if you want my answers just read up on String Theory. And, if you've already done so, then you already know what my answers would be.
And you are also free to reject them so far as I'm concerned. Now I see no reason why this merits any further debate between us!
Hostory=History (hey mods, how 'bout that edit feature) :-/
"And what is that bigger universe expanding into?"
Nothingness, perhaps. Letting go of the idea that there is anything beyond the universe is difficult. There may well be "something" that the universe is expanding into, but we sure as heck know nothing about it at this point. All we know is that the universe is expanding. Once we figure that out, we might get around to beginning to figure out what is beyond the universe.
Our observations are necessarily limited to our own universe, at this point. As we look out toward the outer limits of the universe, we are looking far back into time, since we require electromagnetic waves for our observations...so far. At the limits of the universe, many, many billions of years ago, we cannot see any further, since we have nothing with which to see. We can see remnants of the original energy that formed the universe, but, beyond that, there is nothing to measure, and nothing we can measure with.
Science does not deal with what is beyond our ability to measure. There are speculations, and some inklings of what might be outside of our universe, but there's no way to see, experience, or examine anything beyond our universe.
Frankly, for me, understanding the universe is quite enough of a challenge. I expect it will always be the limit of our capabilities to understand.
Just think of nothing when you wonder what the universe is expanding into. Simply nothing.
LOL! On the contrary. I understand this material so well that I can stump you with endless questions whose only answers will refute your own prior responses.
Which is to say, I know that you're wrong. I am using this fact to cause you to answer the inconsistencies and contradictions in your own ideas, such that eventually you will see the light.
Are you a democrat?...
"That's not a valid answer."
Of course it is a valid answer. We do not know is always a valid answer. We may know at some point, but we do not know at this point.
"Then why and how was this gravitational force overcome originally back when matter was even closer together than today?"
We do not know the answer to that question, but we're working on finding an answer. I know you don't like that answer, but there have always things we did not know. At one point, not so long ago, we did not know that the sun was at the center (more or less) of our solar system. Now we know that.
Your question cannot be answered at this time. Sometime in the future, there will probably be an answer.
"Because if space expanded around it what do you think would hold together that tremendous density and pressure?" - Bones75
You're confusing matter and space.
Lets try again: Space expands. Fine. The matter didn't. Why isn't the matter still inside the space of a marble (held together by an aggregate force of Gravity the likes of which we've never seen)?
"Are you a democrat?...
"
Nope. What does that have to do with the turtles?
Chuck Norris doesn't "like" things. He tolerates them.
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.