Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Expanding space

  1. #1 Expanding space 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    UK LINCOLN
    Posts
    12
    What is the fuel that keeps space expanding.

    How dose the fuel keep its energy to keep on expanding space to infinite size ?

    Dose the fuel have a infinite life span and force or dose the universe make new fuel as it expands creating new space. (dark energy).
    Is there some other partial or force we yet do-not understand. Would the fuel sores not run out or lose some of its energy over time and would this loss of energy not slow down the expansion of space.???


    Last edited by ANDY T; December 31st, 2012 at 08:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Momentum is not fuel. Nor does momentum need fuel- just a starting push.

    The "force" not understood is Dark Energy. Dark energy relates to the acceleration of expansion.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    UK LINCOLN
    Posts
    12
    If Dark energy relates to the acceleration of expansion how would this acceleration continue to speed up as even Dark energy must at some point start to lose some of its energy Momentum over time. The larger space gets the more space each particle has and the increase in space between particle (Dark energy) the lower the force becomes and Momentum is slowed.
    Last edited by ANDY T; January 1st, 2013 at 07:12 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    What if dark energy could be thought of as a property of space, so that the more space there is, the more the effect of dark energy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Thinker Emeritus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Delaware, USA
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    What if dark energy could be thought of as a property of space, so that the more space there is, the more the effect of dark energy?
    One of the possibilities for dark energy is indeed that it is the "cosmological constant" of General Relativity, which is exactly a property of space. This constant was in Einstein's first version of General Relativity. He abandoned its use after the expansion of the universe was discovered, since it was no longer needed to keep the universe from collapsing under the gravitational forces between all of the objects in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Momentum is not fuel. Nor does momentum need fuel- just a starting push.

    The "force" not understood is Dark Energy. Dark energy relates to the acceleration of expansion.
    If dark energy is not understood, can it be related to the acceleration of expansion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Thinker Emeritus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Delaware, USA
    Posts
    195
    Dark energy is by definition the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of space. The open question is whether dark energy is in fact something that is already known in another context.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Dark energy is by definition the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of space. The open question is whether dark energy is in fact something that is already known in another context.
    The first part of your statement suggest dark matter is responcible for the acceleration of space. In the second part it is not known what dark matter is.
    Is dark matter the only cause the galaxies are moving apart at the rate of the expanding space, or is there other energies involved?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Dark energy is by definition the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of space. The open question is whether dark energy is in fact something that is already known in another context.
    The first part of your statement suggest dark matter is responcible for the acceleration of space. In the second part it is not known what dark matter is.
    Is dark matter the only cause the galaxies are moving apart at the rate of the expanding space, or is there other energies involved?
    That's dark energy, not dark matter.

    Dark energy is the name we give to that which causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. We don't know what it is, yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Thinker Emeritus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Delaware, USA
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Dark energy is by definition the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of space. The open question is whether dark energy is in fact something that is already known in another context.
    The first part of your statement suggest dark matter is responcible for the acceleration of space. In the second part it is not known what dark matter is.
    Is dark matter the only cause the galaxies are moving apart at the rate of the expanding space, or is there other energies involved?
    Given the assumption that General Relativity is correct, there is a place in the equation of space for a quantity that causes the expansion of space to accelerate. What has been done is to name that quantity, whatever it is, "dark energy." Now lots of people are searching, mostly theoretically at the moment, for what dark energy might be. In other words, people are looking for something that might have effects other than the acceleration of the expansion and might conceivably already be known about because of those other effects. If the "something" is already known, everyone will say "Dark energy is just X"; if it is not already known it will most likely be called "dark energy" after its discovery.

    Of course there could be more than one thing involved, and then each would wind up with its own name.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Dark energy is by definition the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of space. The open question is whether dark energy is in fact something that is already known in another context.
    The first part of your statement suggest dark matter is responcible for the acceleration of space. In the second part it is not known what dark matter is.
    Is dark matter the only cause the galaxies are moving apart at the rate of the expanding space, or is there other energies involved?
    That's dark energy, not dark matter.

    Dark energy is the name we give to that which causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. We don't know what it is, yet.
    I get the feeling there are so many unknowns and variables that the whole thing gets complicated. As it seems too many observed phenomenon with no basic idea of the totality of any one observation. I am sure every one is asking the same questions and no one can feel justified by any one answer. In the end what is the basic idea of wanting to know something that is not understood or used by the masses. If we knew how the world began could it change anything? I have so many questions inside of me that I cannot answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Dark energy is by definition the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of space. The open question is whether dark energy is in fact something that is already known in another context.
    The first part of your statement suggest dark matter is responcible for the acceleration of space. In the second part it is not known what dark matter is.
    Is dark matter the only cause the galaxies are moving apart at the rate of the expanding space, or is there other energies involved?
    Given the assumption that General Relativity is correct, there is a place in the equation of space for a quantity that causes the expansion of space to accelerate. What has been done is to name that quantity, whatever it is, "dark energy." Now lots of people are searching, mostly theoretically at the moment, for what dark energy might be. In other words, people are looking for something that might have effects other than the acceleration of the expansion and might conceivably already be known about because of those other effects. If the "something" is already known, everyone will say "Dark energy is just X"; if it is not already known it will most likely be called "dark energy" after its discovery.

    Of course there could be more than one thing involved, and then each would wind up with its own name.
    In other words you are saying everything or most things we discuss are not really relevant, but hypothetically relevant. Most of it is based on assumptions and conjectures. Telescopes cannot make predictions it can only observe through lenses that are an extension of human eyes. Is this a quest to change earth and the way we live? It is certainly mind boggling to even ask question about the universe but more mind boggling to expect an answer the way we want it, yet we do it anyway.
    .I do not think the problem of finding a name is a great one, I think finding out how something works is the intriguing question. However I am still at the point where I want to know about space before I can begin to think that I am making sense to myself. What is space? I cannot see it as just the space between objects in much the same way I can understand white matter from black matter. What is light energy opposed to dark energy. These question are still floating around out there waiting for some picture from a observascope to reveal its nature to us so we can move on to understanding the universe. What do you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Thinker Emeritus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Delaware, USA
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    In other words you are saying everything or most things we discuss are not really relevant, but hypothetically relevant. Most of it is based on assumptions and conjectures. Telescopes cannot make predictions it can only observe through lenses that are an extension of human eyes. Is this a quest to change earth and the way we live? It is certainly mind boggling to even ask question about the universe but more mind boggling to expect an answer the way we want it, yet we do it anyway.
    .I do not think the problem of finding a name is a great one, I think finding out how something works is the intriguing question. However I am still at the point where I want to know about space before I can begin to think that I am making sense to myself. What is space? I cannot see it as just the space between objects in much the same way I can understand white matter from black matter. What is light energy opposed to dark energy. These question are still floating around out there waiting for some picture from a observascope to reveal its nature to us so we can move on to understanding the universe. What do you think?
    I think you've got the point. Physics generally turns out to be simple [but not easy], but the process of figuring out how things work is very complicated indeed. The big advantage of science is that it is based on observations, and within reasonable bounds the observations are true. However, understanding how things work is messy, and you are sometimes very unsure what is true and never absolutely sure that you have all the important parts right. Hearing someone's new work, or better yet having an idea yourself, gives you a "So THAT is how it is" reaction, and if you are lucky, reading about a part of physics you don't yet know gives you much the same feeling.

    Like essentially all of physics, at least when fully understood, space is a mathematical construct. I find it absolutely fascinating that we live in a universe all of which is a mathematical construct, simple in principle but complicated in the way the pieces fit together. For space, we start with the idea of distance, how many meter sticks can I fit between me and that tree? Then we find there are three independent spatial dimensions plus the rather more mysterious time dimension. Then Einstein comes along and tells us that the four dimensions are woven together and that they are mathematically curved. Time is just another dimension like the other three. Then we have difficulty understanding the idea because space is purely mathematical and we were expecting something more concrete. Moreover, there are visualization problems like space being curved within itself, not into an additional dimension like all the objects we are used to. Worse, space is expanding so that the objects embedded in it are getting further apart without moving within space. It takes quite a bit of thought to decide which of the old concepts are helpful in visualizing the reality and which need to be ignored altogether. Then when you learn to live with the new ideas, even newer things show up. And it never ends, because nobody knows all that there is to know.

    It is frustrating to be in the middle of something that is not completely understood, but it is exciting as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    In other words you are saying everything or most things we discuss are not really relevant, but hypothetically relevant. Most of it is based on assumptions and conjectures. Telescopes cannot make predictions it can only observe through lenses that are an extension of human eyes. Is this a quest to change earth and the way we live? It is certainly mind boggling to even ask question about the universe but more mind boggling to expect an answer the way we want it, yet we do it anyway.
    .I do not think the problem of finding a name is a great one, I think finding out how something works is the intriguing question. However I am still at the point where I want to know about space before I can begin to think that I am making sense to myself. What is space? I cannot see it as just the space between objects in much the same way I can understand white matter from black matter. What is light energy opposed to dark energy. These question are still floating around out there waiting for some picture from a observascope to reveal its nature to us so we can move on to understanding the universe. What do you think?
    I think you've got the point. Physics generally turns out to be simple [but not easy], but the process of figuring out how things work is very complicated indeed. The big advantage of science is that it is based on observations, and within reasonable bounds the observations are true. However, understanding how things work is messy, and you are sometimes very unsure what is true and never absolutely sure that you have all the important parts right. Hearing someone's new work, or better yet having an idea yourself, gives you a "So THAT is how it is" reaction, and if you are lucky, reading about a part of physics you don't yet know gives you much the same feeling.

    Like essentially all of physics, at least when fully understood, space is a mathematical construct. I find it absolutely fascinating that we live in a universe all of which is a mathematical construct, simple in principle but complicated in the way the pieces fit together. For space, we start with the idea of distance, how many meter sticks can I fit between me and that tree? Then we find there are three independent spatial dimensions plus the rather more mysterious time dimension. Then Einstein comes along and tells us that the four dimensions are woven together and that they are mathematically curved. Time is just another dimension like the other three. Then we have difficulty understanding the idea because space is purely mathematical and we were expecting something more concrete. Moreover, there are visualization problems like space being curved within itself, not into an additional dimension like all the objects we are used to. Worse, space is expanding so that the objects embedded in it are getting further apart without moving within space. It takes quite a bit of thought to decide which of the old concepts are helpful in visualizing the reality and which need to be ignored altogether. Then when you learn to live with the new ideas, even newer things show up. And it never ends, because nobody knows all that there is to know.

    It is frustrating to be in the middle of something that is not completely understood, but it is exciting as well.
    1. Exciting is the word, I am not sure why I want to find out some of these things because reality as we know it is right in our backyards. I personally cannot understand so many things about myself which I think is very important to know before I go dabbling into something that is much farther away. I think it is important because knowing how I am made up and how I function would lead me to understand more of what I perceive, especially in space.

    Einstein and all the others together with the older civilizations and their versions of science has contributed to where we are today. Science is certainly not new to us on earth, understandable there are different observations and different interpretations, but all in all there is a movement. I have tried so much math’s to see if I could come up with anything different to satisfy my curiosity but I gave up after I realized that there were too many variables and incomplete information to move ahead.

    My biggest problem is what we do with individual observations and collective observations. Individual observation is almost obsolete. We are forced to see things one way and that is not what I am about.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universalis Infinitis Devon Keogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dublin, Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    145
    It may be that the theoretical dark matter is a form of tachyon?

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
    Sir Isaac Newton

    In my own opinion there is no greater mathematical Principle than that which is x - x = 0. This shows that matter can be created from nothing as long as the total product of the matter's mass & energy equal exactly zero.
    The only question is, "Where did all that antimatter go?"

    Favourite Elements: Sodium, Neodymium, Xenon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Thinker Emeritus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Delaware, USA
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon Keogh View Post
    It may be that the theoretical dark matter is a form of tachyon?
    I think it is fair to say that almost all experts expect one of the other alternatives for dark matter to turn out to be true. At the moment no one really knows how to describe a tachyon mathematically. In fact, one of the usual criteria for an "acceptable" quantum field theory is that it not have tachyons.

    Personally, I think it would be a lot of fun for dark matter to turn out to be made of tachyons. The experimental results might suggest a way to fix up our description, and with or without hints the process of learning how to describe them and incorporate them into current theory (or correct the theories so they tolerate tachyons) would be very enjoyable. It is surely premature to spend any time speculating about details, however.

    Another far-out possibility would be that tachyons somehow produce the effect of dark energy, but there is very probably no way to even start on this one. We really need some observational information on dark matter and dark energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universalis Infinitis Devon Keogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dublin, Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon Keogh View Post
    It may be that the theoretical dark matter is a form of tachyon?
    I think it is fair to say that almost all experts expect one of the other alternatives for dark matter to turn out to be true. At the moment no one really knows how to describe a tachyon mathematically. In fact, one of the usual criteria for an "acceptable" quantum field theory is that it not have tachyons.

    Personally, I think it would be a lot of fun for dark matter to turn out to be made of tachyons. The experimental results might suggest a way to fix up our description, and with or without hints the process of learning how to describe them and incorporate them into current theory (or correct the theories so they tolerate tachyons) would be very enjoyable. It is surely premature to spend any time speculating about details, however.

    Another far-out possibility would be that tachyons somehow produce the effect of dark energy, but there is very probably no way to even start on this one. We really need some observational information on dark matter and dark energy.
    Well then, if Tachyons are real, then this thread is basically solved.

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
    Sir Isaac Newton

    In my own opinion there is no greater mathematical Principle than that which is x - x = 0. This shows that matter can be created from nothing as long as the total product of the matter's mass & energy equal exactly zero.
    The only question is, "Where did all that antimatter go?"

    Favourite Elements: Sodium, Neodymium, Xenon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Thinker Emeritus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Delaware, USA
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon Keogh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon Keogh View Post
    It may be that the theoretical dark matter is a form of tachyon?
    I think it is fair to say that almost all experts expect one of the other alternatives for dark matter to turn out to be true. At the moment no one really knows how to describe a tachyon mathematically. In fact, one of the usual criteria for an "acceptable" quantum field theory is that it not have tachyons.

    Personally, I think it would be a lot of fun for dark matter to turn out to be made of tachyons. The experimental results might suggest a way to fix up our description, and with or without hints the process of learning how to describe them and incorporate them into current theory (or correct the theories so they tolerate tachyons) would be very enjoyable. It is surely premature to spend any time speculating about details, however.

    Another far-out possibility would be that tachyons somehow produce the effect of dark energy, but there is very probably no way to even start on this one. We really need some observational information on dark matter and dark energy.
    Well then, if Tachyons are real, then this thread is basically solved.
    Oh, no. Tachyons being real would be only the beginning. Moreover, tachyons could be real but totally irrelevant to cosmology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon Keogh View Post
    It may be that the theoretical dark matter is a form of tachyon?
    We would expect to see Cherenkov radiation emanating from such matter. This does not appear to be supported by observation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is space itself really expanding?
    By Neuntoter in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: April 10th, 2012, 03:45 AM
  2. Us shrinking or space expanding?
    By PetTastic in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 281
    Last Post: March 16th, 2012, 06:29 PM
  3. Expanding of space within solar system
    By sak in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 1st, 2008, 07:53 AM
  4. Time expanding with space?
    By BumFluff in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 11th, 2008, 08:07 PM
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
  •