What is the Universe expanding into..

Do you think there was anything before the big bang?

  • I don't think there was anything before the Big Bang

    Votes: 56 12.5%

  • I think something existed before the Big Bang

    Votes: 200 44.7%

  • I don't think the big bang happened

    Votes: 54 12.1%

  • I think the universe is part of a mutiverse

    Votes: 201 45.0%
  • Total voters
    447
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
Galu

Galu

Member
Joined 2018
There are studies which claim to show that redshift is not solely due to the recessional velocity of an expanding space, although they admit it is the major contribution to the redshifts so extensively observed by astronomers. There is some debate on whether redshifts could come from the intrinsic physical properties of space itself. I append one such study, although my understanding halted at the mention of 'The Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation (NLSE)'. :eek:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...for_Redshift&usg=AOvVaw3KXd3FgxjPWc2xX6OnAbQk
 
edbarx

edbarx

Member
Joined 2018
Galu's link said:
There is a different theory that is much less known and much less accepted by researchers. This is known as “Tired Light” theory [1]. The idea behind this theory is that, when light is travelling through the cosmic space, it must lose energy through interaction with particles, mostly hydrogen atoms, or other minute particles.
Click to expand...


Thanks Galu for the link.
 
Galu

Galu

Member
Joined 2018
The continuation of the quote from Galu's link >
The proposed theory is that the loss varies exponentially from distance travelled. Although there are qualitative arguments presented on how the loss could have taken place, there is no concrete evidence from laws of physics that such an exponential relationship should exist.
Click to expand...
Selective quoting is a remarkable tool.

I often use it myself! :D
 
Last edited:
edbarx

edbarx

Member
Joined 2018
Galu said:
Selective quoting is a remarkable tool.

I often use it myself! :D
Click to expand...
Any reader who wants to form their conclusions can read, or better study, the provided link.

My first post today, is only the ramblings of somebody doing some speculative pseudo-scientific thinking. It is only a matter of chance that it happened to hit an existing but unsupported hypothesis.

No offence taken. Real scientific hypotheses require far more effort than my mere amateur ramblings.
 
Last edited:
system7

system7

Member
Joined 2008
edbarx said:
The hypothesis that the universe is expanding, is based on the red shift of light arriving from very very long distances. The premise is, that for light to red-shift, the wavelength must increase implying the frequency must decrease. A decrease in frequency of light photons, is also a decrease of energy per photon. The 'expanding' universe seems to be stealing energy from the photons by some means.

In Physics, a collision between a photon and an electron is possible. In fact, there are formulae describing such collisions. Since, Quantum Mechanics allows a photon to be treated like a particle, as in this case, the question whether photons travelling through space lose energy to nearby particles, should be logical to ask, at least tentatively.

If such a loss of photon energy exists, the hypothesis of an expanding universe collapses.

It is needless to state, since this is a public forum and not a university, my little annoying ramblings, are not some presumption to be awarded scientific recognitions of any sort.
Click to expand...

It's a good topic. I think I have figured it out.

X-Rays and Gamma Rays might lose energy through Compton Scattering with heavy particles or bound electrons. It's INELASTIC.

Strangely, it seems that lower energy light photons don't, when passing electrons. Thomson Scattering.

The latter is ELASTIC scattering. Does that make it like Snooker? I'm not sure. :eek:

Apparently the Universe is expanding 11% faster than it ought to be doing. But this could have many explanations, including our local region of the Universe being less dense than average. Which affects measurements.
 
Last edited:
Galu

Galu

Member
Joined 2018
Enlarging on Steve's post:

Compton Scattering only occurs between photons and charged particles. It's 'inelastic' meaning that the photon loses energy by transferring it to the charged particle.

Now, according to Harlan Ellison, "The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."

Hot, bright stars split atomic hydrogen into ionic hydrogen i.e. into charged protons and electrons.

This process seeds space with very diffuse ionic hydrogen, making Compton Scattering a possibility.

However, as Steve says, such scattering only applies to X-ray or gamma ray photons - not to photons of visible light.
 
system7

system7

Member
Joined 2008
The reason the photons aren't impeded by loose electrons is they are so much smaller that they just bounce off the heavy electrons unaffected. Like those old 98% superballs we had as kids. It is classical mechanics.

I'm not losing too much sleep over "What the Universe is Expanding into"! :D

Every direction you look in Space, you look back in time to the Big Bang. The Original Centre, AFAIK.

Nobody has found a way yet to look at the edge. :confused:

Which is because the Inner Centre blocks out the view of the Outer Edge, IMO.

I think it's just a question of understanding the Geometry of the whole thing.

I was encouraged by this brilliant virus lockdown proof:
Quanta Magazine

It's got everything I like in Mathematics way beyond my ability. :cool:

Simple problem about rectangles on a random smooth closed curve. It's flippin' obvious that you can make a rectangle of any ratio just from looking at it.

But proving it takes us into Toroids, Mobius Strips, Klein bottles, 4 dimensions. And then constraining the solutions into Symplectic Geometry, Kahler Manifolds, Betti numbers and Euler characteristics, and even Galu's pet hate, Gaussian Curvature.

Increasingly I follow my intuition that we live in a special 4 dimensional Doughnut. How it is, IMO. Time will tell.
 
system7

system7

Member
Joined 2008
Galu said:
New Geometric Perspective Cracks Old Problem About Rectangles? That's all too much for an old square like me! :D
Click to expand...

You should be on the Stage, telling Jokes, not in Physics and Mathematics. :D

Are you telling me you digested this in 9 minutes? :confused:

Quanta Magazine

TBH, I thought that was one of the most excellent pieces of Mathematics I have seen in years. And spent two days on it, whilst researching some more complex aspects. The original paper is way beyond my pay grade.

But every serious class needs a Comedian. Stops us taking it too seriously. :cool:
 
system7

system7

Member
Joined 2008
OK, I'll run with it. :)

Who are the funniest Physicists ever?

Perhaps Sidney Coleman?

YouTube

Terrible haircut, Grouch Marx moustache. Physically awkward. Autistic to the max and liable to *SHOCK*, *HORROR* smoking on Stage.

Never put a foot wrong.

Dick Feynman? 'The Character of Physical Law': Richard Feynman's Legendary Course Presented at Cornell, 1964 | Open Culture

Again, never put a foot wrong.

I admit I am struggling to think of Funny Mathematicians. Maybe David Hilbert. Good hat. And brilliant, of course. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom