Posted on 03/16/2006 11:31:54 AM PST by The_Victor
Sure it's possible. The speed of light involves a speed *through* space, while inflation involves the inflation of space itself. Speed through space is limited by c, but space itself is not limited in that way.
It's not an explosion in space, it is an explosion of more space. Imagine a checker board and all the pieces arranged in their starting positions. An explosion of space would be like adding squares to this checker board. None of the pieces move, but they all get farther apart.
"Maybe we can throw a bone to those of us who need to have a 'space' that space is expanding into."
How about this?
In the simplest of terms, Einsteinian gravity isn't gravity. It's that the presence of matter causes the space around the object to "curve", which causes things moving in the vicinity to track into the object. We can diagram this (and do) with pretty grid pictures, so think of the grid.
But, of course, if space is space, there is not really a grid.
But the particle physicists are out there frantically searching for the gravitron. Which is curious. Why do you need a PARTICLE to do something, when Einstein tells us that gravity is, essentially, caused by the presence of matter warping the grid (I am being crude, but don't quibble, because it's not half bad for plain language).
So, there are plenty of folks who, rightly, say that there's a fundamental conflict between particle theory and Einstein, and get exercised about it too. (The exercised part is the part where I start saying "Whoa!" because it means that people are starting to treat this stuff like a religion, and adding emotion to it. Which is not the best thing to do if you want to keep your mind flexible enough to be able to fiddle with new theories. No, we should not CARE is Newton or Einstein was right, nor Darwin or Lamarck either. But that's a separate philosophical issue.)
To try and unify these apparently conflicting things, consider this: the gravitron IS the grid. Emanating from matter, as a sort of "energy" - call it gravitational energy (again, give me a break, the language of medieval tribes was not designed for this stuff) - what the gravitrons do is MAKE the grid. They're the thing that is out there "warping" around in the presence of matter, and emanating from it.
Alright, so go back to that physics textbook with the funny 3-d diagram that's trying to show gravity "warping" space.
Now just imagine that the space really is just a void. Utterly empty and nothing. Unless there is matter there throwing out gravitrons to MAKE a grid which then affects other matter that comes within the grid.
Gravity would then move at the speed of light, because it would be a particle, and the grid itself would shape itself at that speed, as the particles make the grid.
But where there's really NOTHING, no matter. There are no gravitrons (or other particles, obviously), and therefore, there's no grid. That's really nothing. There's nothing to organize it. Once any THING is there, there's a particle...and therefore relationship, and once there's matter of any sort, there are gravitrons and a grid, and it's not "Nothing" anymore.
So, "space time" is the warped grid of all of these gravitrons, making a saddleback or whatever the current theory of the shape of the universe says, and popping and buzzing along out of nothing, maybe, just because there's a chunk of something about.
But where there's not something there's nothign, and no grid either.
It's our language that wants to call nothing "something", and include the something that's nothing in the universe. So, fine, consider everything outside the saddleback as "the universe", but without rules, because there's nothing to behave out there, and nothing can get out of the saddleback, because the saddleback is the structure made by the gravitrons which are the grid.
Nothing goes on forever, and we can't see the end of it.
It is peopled by things like the dream you will have next Thursday. (Does that exist yet?)
Actually, I was hoping for some form of DeSitter space. I don't know enough about General Relativity to know if satisfies the embedding property though. I just here DeSitter space thrown around a lot in General Relativity discussions.
Standard Model Quantum Field Theory is something I am a bit better at.
here = hear
(a) The Standard Model states that gravity was not differentiated before Planck time. It was the symmetry breaks that first differentiated gravity and then the strong force that cause the super-inflation to begin with (according to the model). As the universe swiftly cooled, it slowed to the more liesurely pace that followed, due to gravity.
(b) If you accept the Standard Model, the presently accelerating expansion is itself the evidence for dark energy. You may not like the explanation, but the Standard Model has an explanation nonetheless. Now, if you meant to say to begin with that it cannot prove, as opposed to it cannot explain, then be my guest (and I will agree with you, so far as 'at this time' goes).
(c) Why the heck am I still discussing this with you?! LOL No, seriously, I should've let it go earlier, as was my stated intention, but since I unwisely introduced String Theory into all this, I wanted to make sure I don't misrepresent things. So, since I'm back at this, if there's anything else I'll have to get to it tonight.
Am I the only one who realizes that any math produced will be made up on the spot?
"Actually, I was hoping for some form of DeSitter space."
You want it spoken in math, in other words.
Which is good, because you're working at the level where it needs to be in math to really be precise.
I was just speaking in English, because if you can't say it in English sentences, then it isn't real and doesn't exist. (!)
"Standard Model Quantum Field Theory is something I am a bit better at."
It would be really helpful to a lot of folks here (of varying temperaments) if you could explain, in plain English (translate the jargon, please) what a gravitron is, what it's supposed to do, why everyone so wants to find it, and how it works in relation to Einstein's warped space-time gravity.
Are the things in opposite directions from each other from our point of view at the same distance, moving away from us at the same speed? I heard somewhere, and I really don't recall the source, that red shift seems to indicate that we are in the center if it all. IOW, the red shift of all objects of an equal distance from the earth is the same. Is this correct? I hope you get what I'm asking. I'm not sure how to explain well what I mean.
I understand what you mean, and the last I heard on the subject, estimate are that we are "close" to the center. However, assuming space expands uniformly (i.e. one part doesn't expand more or faster than another part), objects in opposite directions that are equal distances from us would show the same redshift regardless of whether we are at the center of the universe. So, I don't think that redshift is the evidence, but I could be mistaken.
The universe appears to be symmetrical, more or less, with us at the center. That we appear to be at the center is probably an illusion. If it is not an illusion, there are bigger problems with physics and cosmology than we thought.
Bump.
We are not here now.
The "Great Unknown" which I define as oblivion.
Project Troll-watch ping
Is thread dead yet?
"Are the things in opposite directions from each other from our point of view at the same distance, moving away from us at the same speed? I heard somewhere, and I really don't recall the source, that red shift seems to indicate that we are in the center if it all. IOW, the red shift of all objects of an equal distance from the earth is the same. Is this correct? I hope you get what I'm asking. I'm not sure how to explain well what I mean."
The universe looks the same to us, out in every direction, as far as we can see. We cannot see to any "edge" nor can an "center" be detected. All galaxies in all directions are receding from all other galaxies, with small exceptions on a local scale.
So we can't even tell if there is a "center" let alone whether we are it. All properties of space appear uniform in all directions
If the redshift of objects equal distance from us on either side of us is indeed the same, then it would stand to reason that we are indeed at the center, wouldn't it? I'd think it sould be pretty simple to determine our position in the universe fairly simply mathematically from redshift alone. I had trouble with math but this doesn't seem too complicated.
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.