Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Maybe everything is getting smaller?

  1. #1 Maybe everything is getting smaller? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Hey everyone, first timer in this forum.

    Had a weird thought. I'd like to open a discussion about it. What if what's happening in the universe is a combination of the force of the big bang along with everything getting smaller.

    By smaller I mean, literally, everything is getting smaller – atoms, sub-atomic particles, and the forces that relate. Everything. It wouldn’t be noticeable on a small scale – like our galaxy – because everything is relative and things stay grouped together because of attractive forces.

    It would be a kind of a subatomic slow heat death - a transference of the energy it takes for energy to exist in a "solid" form - that gets transferred into movement / heat / or something?

    Although it wouldn’t be noticeable within our galaxy, it would be noticeable in how the larger celestial groupings act relative to one another. I mean, there's always been questions about the odd way everything’s moving away from one another. It’s lead people to elaborate theories about the influence of dark matter and overlapping universes. I'm wondering if imagining that everything is getting smaller would also explain it.

    Admittedly this is just a random thought. I don’t really know much about the “odd way everything’s moving away from one another” or about the theory of dark matter. Perhaps this is easily refuted. But I thought I’d open it to discussion and this was the first forum I found through a google search. If the idea isn’t complete pseudoscience, then maybe the theory already exists and somebody can tell me the name of it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,362
    This is a science forum. You have an idea, all well and good, but what evidence do you have to support it? If the answer is "none" no one will take it seriously. The burden on you is to support your idea and make predictions that can be tested that lead from your idea. Without this the scientific method says "meh, not worth considering."


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    I assumed this is easily refutable or the theory already exists. I offer no proof because I'm asking for advice. If you read my post that would be clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,362
    I was trying to get you to think scientifically, if you cannot support your idea with evidence, it is dismissed as not worth thinking about, no refutation required.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    I was looking forward to getting advice from people who have spent their entire careers studying Astronomy & Cosmology. A quick spring board to STARTING to look for information about this. I was not asking for advice in order to play footsie with some angsty forum nazi. You mind backing off? We both CLEARLY have better things to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,362
    Then you are just another internet nut case(calling people who try to get you to think, or expand your idea as a "nazi" is a dead giveaway). I offered constructive advice on how to develop your idea and you ignored it :shrug: I'll leave you to it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    LOL. A "nut case" would say that they've figured something out. I'm saying that I had an idea and hoping to get guidance to looking up information about it. By your wisdom, anybody who walks into a classroom without knowing everything already is somehow crazy. Now if you're saying that this forum is only for proving personal theories and not for inquiries, THEN you'd have a leg to stand on. But I'm guessing that isn't the case and you're just a dime a dozen forum nazi. Good luck with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,362
    As I said "I'll leave you to it" I have no time to waste on people like you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Obviously you do. By the way, you "left it to me" twice now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,362
    And now you're in the bullshit bin Personal theories, on my recommendation, I'm done...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    You keep getting done, and yet...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Ok! So now that that's done...

    As I mentioned before, I'm sure this has already been thought of and somebody long ago debunked it. Does anybody have information about that? Again, i'm talking about sub-atomic shrinkage AND universe expansion, and whether or not that could be used to explain the "curious ways the universe is expanding".

    I'd love to hear knowledge or articles about how particles retain their identity instead of bursting into energy, or about the expansion of the universe. Or perhaps articles about this theory itself.

    Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky;602004[COLOR=#1D2129
    ][/COLOR]Had a weird thought. I'd like to open a discussion about it. What if what's happening in the universe is a combination of the force of the big bang along with everything getting smaller.

    By smaller I mean, literally, everything is getting smaller – atoms, sub-atomic particles, and the forces that relate. Everything. It wouldn’t be noticeable on a small scale – like our galaxy – because everything is relative and things stay grouped together because of attractive forces.
    It would be noticeable immediately. For example, the distances within our solar system would change relative to our measurement tools. The Moon would seem farther away optically (due to it being smaller) but when we measured it, it would not actually be farther away. And of course that would change its effect on the Earth (less gravity.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky;602004[COLOR=#1D2129
    ][/COLOR]Had a weird thought. I'd like to open a discussion about it. What if what's happening in the universe is a combination of the force of the big bang along with everything getting smaller.

    By smaller I mean, literally, everything is getting smaller – atoms, sub-atomic particles, and the forces that relate. Everything. It wouldn’t be noticeable on a small scale – like our galaxy – because everything is relative and things stay grouped together because of attractive forces.
    It would be noticeable immediately. For example, the distances within our solar system would change relative to our measurement tools. The Moon would seem farther away optically (due to it being smaller) but when we measured it, it would not actually be farther away. And of course that would change its effect on the Earth (less gravity.)
    The way I had imagined it, everything would get smaller. Forces included. Photons themselves would shrink and travel "slower". Like the rules that govern physics are tied to the size of our smallest particles. I had imagined that, yes, the moon would "shrink" along with the earth, but so would the speeds they travel, etc. etc. I think I falsely imagined that would lead to everything that's tied together through a system of gravity to move closer at the same time. Like with the moon example, the force of the moon's movement that keeps it from just falling into the earth would be reduced equally to the gravity that pulls it, leading to the moon's distance from the earth reducing by an equal amount. But no matter how much shrinkage happened, the moon would still behave as a massive object that hasn't reduced in size at all because all the forces that police the laws of physics are reducing at the same time.

    And because all forces are reducing in strength / speed unilaterally, then there would be no delayed affect observed. A delay you'd typically expect due to the speed of gravity / light. But because forces are reducing in strength at the same time, there would be no delay. A gravitational wave from the center of the galaxy that reaches the outermost edges of our galaxy wouldn't behave like the force it was 50,000 years ago, it would have reduced in strength and travel speed along with everything else.

    Like bubbles of reality, everything tied together through a network of gravity would reduce in size together.

    I think there should be PLENTY wrong with what I just wrote, lol. That should make this easy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky View Post
    The way I had imagined it, everything would get smaller. Forces included. Photons themselves would shrink and travel "slower". Like the rules that govern physics are tied to the size of our smallest particles. I had imagined that, yes, the moon would "shrink" along with the earth, but so would the speeds they travel, etc. etc. I think I falsely imagined that would lead to everything that's tied together through a system of gravity to move closer at the same time. Like with the moon example, the force of the moon's movement that keeps it from just falling into the earth would be reduced equally to the gravity that pulls it, leading to the moon's distance from the earth reducing by an equal amount.
    Well, but what would "pull" the Moon closer to the Earth, then stop pulling it when it was at its new smaller distance? And what would "pull" the Andromeda Galaxy closer to us, then stop it at just the right distance so it looks the same to us? And if you did that, how would you make it look the same to someone who was on the other side of Andromeda?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky View Post
    Or perhaps articles about this theory itself.
    You don't have a theory: as has been pointed out you don't have any supporting evidence hence what you posted is baseless speculation and not a theory: a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

    PS: accusations of "forum nazi" are not only unfounded but will not be tolerated in the future. You have been warned.

    i'm talking about sub-atomic shrinkage AND universe expansion, and whether or not that could be used to explain the "curious ways the universe is expanding".
    HOW would it "explain the "curious ways the universe is expanding""?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Well, but what would "pull" the Moon closer to the Earth, then stop pulling it when it was at its new smaller distance? And what would "pull" the Andromeda Galaxy closer to us, then stop it at just the right distance so it looks the same to us? And if you did that, how would you make it look the same to someone who was on the other side of Andromeda?

    As far as pulling goes, it wouldn't happen that way because it isn't happening in spurts. It's happening continuously with zero reaction time. When tied with gravity it's like the objects are riding a wave that's reducing in size as they themselves are reducing in size. Though in reality it would be more like a trick of reality due to every bit of matter and force reducing simultaneously. It's like an inverse effect of "things in motion tend to stay in motion". It would require energy that isn't there for things to remain where they are instead of adjusting along with everything else within a bond of gravity. And an object would never stop getting closer and settling into a new distance because the effect is continuous. It just maintains the right distance but is constantly and instantly responding. There wouldn't be an adjustment period. So in my half-baked theory it would make it only able to be observed by objects that don't have a gravitational relationship with one another.

    ...though I think the biggest problem with this [that I'm seeing] is that the reduction in size is "universal", but the force of gravity isn't. Leading to an observable drop off point, where objects would be loosed from their hold.

    ...and actually given that, the amount that objects "ride" a reducing gravity well, if such a thing were possible, would completely range based on the strength of the gravitational force.

    And if something as dramatic as this "shrinkage" concept was working in unison with gravity there would be something "imperfect" about the drop off of gravity that would of been observed a LONG time ago...

    hmm...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky View Post
    Or perhaps articles about this theory itself.
    You don't have a theory: as has been pointed out you don't have any supporting evidence hence what you posted is baseless speculation and not a theory: a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

    PS: accusations of "forum nazi" are not only unfounded but will not be tolerated in the future. You have been warned.

    i'm talking about sub-atomic shrinkage AND universe expansion, and whether or not that could be used to explain the "curious ways the universe is expanding".
    HOW would it "explain the "curious ways the universe is expanding""?
    Oh man, here we go again. Look, I had a fun thought. I wanted to talk about with people who are in this field. Instead of just standing up inside my own social bubble and spouting it like it's fact. I wanted to think it through WITH the people who know.


    I was looking forward to information. And I expected to come across uneducated in this field. Because I am - I got educated in other fields. But if this forum and the freedom to ask a question is reserved only for those who have earned the right to ask, then close the membership off from the general public. Create a more secluded environment.


    And my "no no" noun phrase that forced you to click on the red ink - that terrible phrase I uttered that I made to your cursing friend - was definitely founded. Sorry, lol, but what follows goes for you as well. Moderator or not: if somebody wants to talk and be educated by the people who know, and that's too much for you, then maybe you should keep your fingers off the key board. If NOBODY wants to answer that person, then that's enough. The need for you to stroke your ego by throwing around sarcastic responses helps nobody. What is gained by making me ashamed of asking people how things work? What is gained by making me ashamed of having curiosity and having ideas? Isn't that what propels people along the path of their education? The only time to get uppity is when somebody uses their lack of understanding to mislead others. Which I didn't want to do, so I came here. You're the people that lead people to fear criticism and stick to their own circles to spout their ideas. Essentially, your one of the causes of the "proud ignorance" epidemic that is sweeping across this country.

    I don't like your sarcastic correction of my use of "theory". Not because it isn't correct, but because it serves no purpose in this thread. Ego stroking. I think the way you stand next to your rude friend and attempt to look paternal with your "warnings" is obnoxious. And if you weren't so obviously trying to build your damaged ego up, you'd clearly see that the "curious ways the universe is expanding" is tied to the current way the universe is expanding that has led scientists to point without complete certainty to dark matter and overlapping universes as potential causes.

    Now take a look at billvon. Clearly my idea doesn't amaze him. But he at least recognizes that I'm curiously thinking about this. That I'm interested and trying to ask the right people. That humoring me and talking the idea out at the very least educates me. Now that's a love for science. And that's how you do this type of thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,782
    Blah blah blah.
    IF you'd asked a question and responded as it were a simple question (i.e. without the "forum nazi" comments) THEN you'd have been treated differently.
    Your idea is non-starter BECAUSE there is no evidence to support it. As PhDemon pointed out. That's how science works. (And also it's an indicator that my "sarcastic correction" wasn't sarcastic and it does serve a purpose: science is done in a particular way by a particular methodology).
    Further pseudo-psychological comments and personal attacks will result in a one day ban. Stop it.

    you'd clearly see that the "curious ways the universe is expanding" is tied to the current way the universe is expanding that has led scientists to point without complete certainty to dark matter and overlapping universes as potential causes
    You still haven't explained HOW your idea explains it.
    (Oh, and science doesn't do "complete certainty").
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Blah blah blah.
    I made it clear I don't like that delivery.

    Does anybody else have any thoughts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky View Post
    I made it clear I don't like that delivery.
    Not my problem.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Well, I continued the conversation elsewhere. It entered into some fun territories. Like the idea of the reduction being an energy transference to fuel fundamental forces. And a further elaboration on the effect gravity has on space and time. I finally realized the most obvious (for me) problem with this. And I think it's what you were hinting at billvon.

    If everything was reducing in size while the expansion from the big bang is going on, down to the tiniest subatomic particles and forces, and somehow the overall gravity system was the biggest factor that was tying things together, then, first, it wouldn't make a lot of sense that the strongest reaction would be at the weakest point of gravity. I mean the outer most edges of the galaxy would need to move inward at the fastest rate. But even if that was the case (like an inverse force that goes hand in hand with a gravity field), and even if this effect couldn't be observed as "movement" (given some perfect, instant balancing of all observable relativity), and even if, in this unique concept, this effect wouldn't behave like any form of recognized movement (objects at the outer most points of our galaxy somehow not showing any signs associated with extreme acceleration), our galaxy's gravitational system would still have to be pretty continuous in increasing the movement associated with the reduction effect all the way to the outermost reaches of its gravitational field for it not to be observed. Observing by of course noting a drop off in the effect at a certain point. And the only way this works to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe is if this force eventually does drop off at the outer area of a gravitational field. And we'd observe some pretty funky interactions with large celestial bodies with that concept. There would be places in the universe where a galaxy looks like its partially being seen through a fish eyed lens that surrounds a neighboring galaxy.

    I think that’s kinda what you were leading me towards, right billvon?

    Welp, it was cool to think about all the same. Got me looking up interesting articles on fundamental forces and the like. If you happen to check back in on this thread, then thanks so much for your time!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky View Post
    The way I had imagined it, everything would get smaller. Forces included.
    Neither the weak nor the strong interaction can be rescaled like this in a mathematically consistent way; that would be the main reason why this idea does not work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky View Post
    The way I had imagined it, everything would get smaller. Forces included.
    Neither the weak nor the strong interaction can be rescaled like this in a mathematically consistent way; that would be the main reason why this idea does not work.
    Thank you! The idea hasn't left my head, I simply felt I couldn't discuss it here anymore. It's gotten to the point where I'm imagining all things as being bunched up time and space that is unraveling at the core of all things, like a sand trap, creating an inward pull. I'm sure it's laughable, but that's what keeps me up at night.

    I'll do research into that - maybe it'll help me let the idea go. Just to make sure, you're talking about the fundamental weak and strong forces?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Hutsofkranky View Post
    I'll do research into that - maybe it'll help me let the idea go. Just to make sure, you're talking about the fundamental weak and strong forces?
    Yes indeed. These quantum field theories are scale-dependent, so if you change the scale ( "shrink everything" ), the associated physics simply will no longer work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Why do Distant Objects Appear Smaller?
    By zinjanthropos in forum Biology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 27th, 2013, 03:17 PM
  2. Infinitely smaller than Kansas?
    By Victor Vector in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 21st, 2011, 06:25 AM
  3. moon getting smaller
    By zach in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 17th, 2009, 12:45 PM
  4. Electromagnetic Waves Smaller Than Gamma
    By TheFinalSon in forum Physics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 1st, 2008, 04:52 AM
  5. Smaller change more possible ?
    By Siemowit in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 18th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •