Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Expanding universe

  1. #1 Expanding universe 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    I have a theory of why the universe is expanding (leaving big bang out).

    Gen. relativity says that more the mass of an object, more is the curling up of spacetime.

    Say, suppose that there is some critical value for which spacetime curls completely into a closed surface (say, a sphere). now, assume the total mass of our universe is greater than this limit and spacetime has curled more than once around itself into a smaller sphere.

    Now, we see, that in our universe, matter is continuously being converted into energy but the reverse happens very rarely (non-spontaneously).

    So, the mass to energy ratio is decreasing in our universe.

    Come to the first argument that space has curled more than once around itself. Now, since the mass of the universe is decreasing, the coils of spacetime are loosening, and so the sphere (universe) is increasing in size.

    Hence concludes my theory

    COROLLARY(1): when the sphere of spacetime has finished uncurling into a single sphere whose surface area is the same as that of the fabric of spacetime, either conversion of mass into energy will stop, or the universe will merge into a sea of parallel universes or get destroyed.

    COROLLARY(2): If all this happens, then spacetime is a finite fabric, so, time ends somewhere.

    Please comment.


    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    PLEASE reply. C'mon, is it that crappy?


    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Euclidean-Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NH/MA
    Posts
    5
    Do you mind showing some mathematical basis for this? Any implications of this theory you have (e.g. what are we likely to find)? Because, I should let you know, this theory does appear to violate the law of conservation of mass.
    "I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them."
    --Issac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Stuck this link in the Big Bang thread, but now realise i should have stuck it here

    Sorry for the duplicity, just an interesting article that didn't go over my head for a change!

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._universe.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Expanding universe 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    So, the mass to energy ratio is decreasing in our universe.
    You should first understand that this conversion of "mass to energy" is not quite right. Instead it is the conversion of mass energy into other forms of energy. So the quantity of energy is constants.

    I think the quantity of mass is irrelevant in General Relativity. The mass and the portion of energy that is in the form of mass does not appear anywhere in Einstein's Field Equation. Intead what you have is the "Stress Energy Tensor" whose components include energy density, momentum density, energy flux, momentum flux, viscosity and pressure. You might think you have a case that a change in these things is implied by this conversion of mass to energy, but I think that is wrong because of the scale on which such a change must occur in order to affect the curvature of the universe.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Expanding universe 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Euclidean-Paradox
    Do you mind showing some mathematical basis for this? .
    I'm sorry, but I am just a college student (not even undergraduate), so I dont really know gen relativity that well ( I'm still dealing with Newton) and I have no knowledge of mathematics than say, simple calculus.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    [
    You should first understand that this conversion of "mass to energy" is not quite right. Instead it is the conversion of mass energy into other forms of energy. So the quantity of energy is constants.

    I think the quantity of mass is irrelevant in General Relativity. The mass and the portion of energy that is in the form of mass does not appear anywhere in Einstein's Field Equation. Intead what you have is the "Stress Energy Tensor" whose components include energy density, momentum density, energy flux, momentum flux, viscosity and pressure. You might think you have a case that a change in these things is implied by this conversion of mass to energy, but I think that is wrong because of the scale on which such a change must occur in order to affect the curvature of the universe.
    Thanks, Ill try to remember that.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •