# Thread: My Theory on how the Universe can Expand so Fast

1. Forgive me for not knowing all the lingo around here, I'm only 19 and haven't studied the sciences beyond GCSE, for me this is much more of a hobby than a specialist subject.

Anyway, here's my thoughtline. As we know energy and mass is never created or destroyed, just converted from one form to another. Really this should be more of a rule of mathematics IMO, equations have to be balanced, you can't make ones from zeros... much more of a universal law than a rule. So why is it that there's so much more of something ('space') now than before?

Well I would still say the law still applies and so you aren't actually making something from nothing. Just, it's not space that remains constant, it's space-TIME. As space is stretched bigger it looses thickness... time. I would suggest time slows down the more space the universe incorporates.

I know it sounds far fetched... it is, though if so we shouldn't actually notice as our perception of reality would presumably be slowed down to the same rate... except as I understand it the speed of light being a constant you'd expect to record it being slowed down, which actually is important as it would explain why the universe (having a faster rate of time because of it's small size) seemed to expand faster than the speed of light just after the big bang, though again I'm not an expert so I'm not sure if this would effect our prediction of what happened. Also as the universe it still expanding we can very easily test this theory by measuring how light travelled now compared to much earlier measurements, seeing if it's recorded as being slower.

So am I on to something, barking up the wrong tree or... in the wrong forest.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Dakirel
Anyway, here's my thoughtline. As we know energy and mass is never created or destroyed, just converted from one form to another. Really this should be more of a rule of mathematics IMO, equations have to be balanced, you can't make ones from zeros... much more of a universal law than a rule. So why is it that there's so much more of something ('space') now than before?
So you're saying space is either energy or mass, as opposed to, er, space?

Well I would still say the law still applies and so you aren't actually making something from nothing. Just, it's not space that remains constant, it's space-TIME. As space is stretched bigger it looses thickness... time. I would suggest time slows down the more space the universe incorporates.
Except that we know that that time slows down in the presence of high mass when compared to empty space.

I know it sounds far fetched... it is, though if so we shouldn't actually notice as our perception of reality would presumably be slowed down to the same rate... except as I understand it the speed of light being a constant you'd expect to record it being slowed down, which actually is important as it would explain why the universe (having a faster rate of time because of it's small size) seemed to expand faster than the speed of light just after the big bang, though again I'm not an expert so I'm not sure if this would effect why out prediction of what happened. Also as the universe it still expanding we can very easily test this theory by measuring how light travelled now compared to much earlier measurements, seeing if it's recorded as being slower.
No.
If you're claiming that time overall slows down then it's universal: and THAT applies to/ affects light as well.
We can't check the "length of a second" from thousands or millions of years ago and compare it to the "length" of one today.
Light is always recorded as travelling at c.

So am I on to something, barking up the wrong tree or... in the wrong forest.
Woof!

4. You're way off track with this as Dywyddyr has shown but keep thinking.

5. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
We can't check the "length of a second" from thousands or millions of years ago and compare it to the "length" of one today.
Light is always recorded as travelling at c.
To put this in another way, we have to take the measured cosmological redshifts at face value. We can't impose a "what if the rates of time itself were different?" interpretive layer onto the observations.

6. This is not a theory. It's conjecture.

7. Indeed Shlunka is right. A Theory in science is very different to a theory in colloquial speech.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theories are explanations which have been highly tested.

What you have suggested is more similar to a hypothesis but a hypothesis cannot contradict known facts if it is considered to be valid.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement