The size of this universe

We see time "expanding"as every second of every minute passes us by.....The simple passage of time could be associated with the expansion of space.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IMO (as layman) Time is created along with space. As far as has been proven (that I know of) time is a "result" of change. We speak of "spacetime" because space is expanding or contracting or whatever, but I have never heard anyone say "zerostatetime" or "infinitytime" or "vacuumtime".

I am no scientist but IMO it is logical to bind Time with the occurrence of events such as the expansion of space, but not as an independent plenum (a constant), existing as a seperate dimension. Time is a non-causal result of the duration of events.

Even the action of looking back or going back in time creates time. Time is an historical account of the past. There is no such thing as "future time" except as an "uncertain" abstraction (speculation).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The red shift is assumed to be due exclusively to expansion velocity. But this is not the only way to red shift energy. As an analogy, if a train is moving away from us, one will notice a change of pitch of the whistle due to the wavelength increasing. Since the product of wavelength and frequency will remain constant the frequency will adjust and we hear the pitch lower; red shift.

This is not the only way to do this. Say the conductor decided to tweak the pitch of the train whistle, by turning the dial, to make it go higher, as the train pulls away from us due to velocity. If you closed your eyes, you might assume the train is stationary since the velocity and the pitch adjustment will cancel each other so there is no shift. He could make it appear to head to us as it moves away if he sets the pitch higher. \

The question becomes, is it possible to time shift (adjust the frequency) of energy so the wavelength will follow? It is like the conductor tweaking the whistle and everyone assuming motion due to the pitch change. They sound the same or in the case of energy, will look the same.

If you take a clock and bring it into space to orbit the earth, the clock will run slower than on the earth. This experiment was done to prove relativity. On the other hand, if we measure the size of the clock, before and after, although time will slow, size does not change. This relativity is only impacting time in a permanent way, but not distance in a permanent way; time shift. Simple rotations due gravity are sufficient to time shift matter.

I am not saying there is no expansion velocity but the estimates ignore a time shift of energy causing a red shift, with experiments showing matter will time dilate but does not change in distance/size in a permanent way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You posted something similar before...Maybe you should explain yourself better as to what you mean?
I cannot see how a conductor tweaking a whistle, has anything to do with light/photons arriving from a distant source and only experiencing space/time expansion.

Also you should realise that other effects do come into play, such as Lorentz contraction, from the FoR of the observer.

Can you elaborate further?

Your third paragraph in particular, seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

 

The geometry of spacetime is gravity. Gravity is local phenomena and the cosmological expansion of space is global phenomena. The gravitational field grows with the cosmological expansion but that's not what we measure with the global cosmological metric. We measure the local spacetime using GR metrics that account for local spacetime curvature and we measure the cosmological expansion of space with a cosmological metric that predicts the shape of the universe by determining Omega.

Omega is the ratio of

p_universe actual density / p_universe critical density

When this ratio =1 the universe is flat with infinite extent. The universe had a starting point but will expand forever. When the ratio is greater than 1 the universe is closed and will collapse. When the ratio is less than 1 the universe is open and will expand forever. Since there's stuff in the universe the gravitational field and all the other fields grow with the expansion.

 

And what is most consistent with the metric expansion of a flat universe is a big bang "singularity" that, rather than being a finite point, was actually already infinite in volume (or extent, or scope), albeit void of "space".

See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

I don't understand why some people consider the idea that the fabric of reality might be infinite in scope to be so bizarre. I think it's more bizarre to suggest that it isn't. I mean how can existence itself, which in the context of physicalism is essentially synonymous with "universe" anyway, be a quantity, or a size? Even if you conceive of the universe as just one finite universe among many, all existing in some kind of multiverse, then you've simply moved the focus of the consideration elsewhere. And when reminded of that, must the multiverse then be declared finite in scope as well, so we can just sit back and enjoy a beer without driving ourselves insane by trying to wrap our brains around something that can literally not ever be encapsulated?

 

i mentioned that earlier in the thread. that if the universe is infinite now then it has always been infinite. didn't get any response to it though.

 

It is assumed that only space-time expansion accounts for all the red shift. This is the biggest cart before the horse. The train example I used, show two ways to get a red shift. The first was movement of the train away; doppler shift. If our ears are the analytical instrument, we hear the frequency go down. The other way is for the conductor to adjust the frequency of the whistle inside the train. If the train is stationary and he changes pitch to a lower frequency, it can sound the same as the Doppler shift to our analytical tool. Relative to EM photons, we can use velocity or we can directly time/frequency shift the photons, and the output will be the same.

The way I prove this is with a relativity example, of an orbiting clock. The clock will slow (in time) but does not get smaller in size (in distance). Let me put it another way. Say we have an atomic clock, at a given native atomic frequency. For time to slow and be recorded by this clock, the atomic frequency needs to decrease due to relativity. Since the product of the wavelength and frequency remains constant, the wavelength has to red shift. Since this experiment was done via an orbit of matter around matter, I inferred all orbits will cause a time shift in the perimeter.

The third paragraph says the time shift is not taken into account. The current cart before the horse attributes this to motion but does not take into account relativity tweaking time via orbital motions of atoms with emissions.

 

ok, I can grasp the concept of an infinite void where out universe is just a local expression and would be able expand infinitely into the void.

The question then becomes if this zero state infinity has any ties to time, IOW, is there "infinitytime" in a void?

I asked this before, I have never heard anyone speak of "zerostatetime" or "infinitytime" or "vacuumtime". Can anyone explain that to me?

 

.

IMO, that is a false analogy. If a clock slows down in time it must be due to an "increase" in size (not decrease), relative to its speed.

If the clock slows, it must be due that the distance between ticks has increased, which would indicate a longer travel of gears or rate of frequency and an overall increase in size of the physical clock or the frequency of the atomic counter. Why would that not be true?

According to Einstein the train physically increases or decreases in length, in relation to its speed. At SOL the train and its clock become infinitely long and time stands still. I may nor present this properly, but I'm sure you understand the thrust of this question.

 

yes, i believe you got it!

the observer to the right of us would see us receding from 'him' at .999999c, just as we see 'him' receding from us at the same speed (but not yet evolved into 'him' but still as a plasma).

likewise, the observer to the left of us would see us receding from 'her', etc.

those two observers are receding from each other at 0.999999+ c (add a few more 9s, i'll let Rpenner do the arithmetic), but won't see each other as highly receding plasmas until the passage of quite a few billions of years of time (they are beyond the 'opacity wall' for each of them respectively, in their reference frames; but in our reference frame they are right at that 'wall').

by extension, there would be an infinite number of such regions beyond our 'opacity wall'.

 

My limited brain size sees difficulty in understanding both finite and infinite when applied to the Universe/space/time.
Infinity, well yeah it's a mathematical concept but makes my mind boggle when trying to visualise it when applied to the Universe.
Being finite also has its own inherent problems. If the Universe is finite, then one is forced to ask questions concerning edges, outside the finite parameter etc.
STOP IT!!!! Where's that beer!!!

 

I had that beer, and suddenly the concept of infinite expansion (into a timeless nothingness) does not sound strange at all. Time is a result of a dynamic expansion of the Universe, but our universal time only exists inside this Universe. Outside the universe there is no physical space or time.

If we compare the "BB singularity inflating the Universe" to a helium cylinder as the "causal singularity inflating a balloon", the balloon will continue to expand regardless of the medium into which the balloon expands as long as there is nothing to impede the inflation and the helium remains inside the balloon.

 

something being finite doesn't have to mean it has edges or boundaries. the surface of a sphere is finite but has no boundaries for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

though when talking about the universe it is more complex than that.

 

not correct. read my post #33. we do not know if the universe is infinite or finite, and we may never know. but current models show us that it is as good as flat and thus infinite.

 

Yep, far more complex.
When we speak of the surface of a sphere in cosmology, it is generally in the context of an analogy where a 2D surface represents the 3D/4D Universe that we know exists, and in explaining the expansion of space/time/Universe. And as we know, as useful as analogies are, they do have limitations.

When we speak of a possible finite Universe/space/time, I still see edges/boundaries/out there's etc as legitimate questions.

Latest data from WMAP of course leads us to believe that it is flat and consequently infinite.

In accepting these latest findings as the best estimate at this time, my brain remains befuddled.

 

I was led to believe the universe is infinite (since 12/1975), and WMAP confirms this theoretical understanding.

 

Would not the "surface of a sphere" in all actually be, in and of itself, a "boundary" or indeed even "the boundary of the sphere"?

It is my understanding that the "surface of a sphere" would be the "boundary" separating what was within the "sphere" from all that was outside of it.

 

That's the way I understood also.