The expansion of the universe may actually be a sign that it is collapsing

Discussion in 'Science' started by kazenatsu, May 20, 2018.

1. kazenatsuWell-Known MemberDonor

Joined:
May 15, 2017
Messages:
12,163
3,438
Trophy Points:
113
As we all know, the universe is expanding. This isn't just an expansion of matter from a singular point in space; the space itself is expanding. Take two distant fixed objects, no inertia relative to each other, and the distance between them is increasing.

But paradoxically this apparent expansion of space may actually be a sign it is contracting.
It depends how you define "space".

Let's look at what happens when you change the density of space. If you increase the density of space, it appears as though there is more distance between two objects. If you decrease the amount of space between two points, you effectively decrease the distance. This does not have to involve actually moving the two objects.

But think about this, if the density of space is increasing, that means space itself is contracting.
It just so happens that that contraction of space happens to result in an expansion of the distance between objects, at least in the area to which space is contracting to. Space is contracting, effective distances are expanding. It does sound paradoxical, but you are basically just moving space from one region to another, so it is not surprising that space would be expanding; it has to be contracting somewhere else.

For those of you who may not be familiar with this area, it is believed that space itself has mass and is a form of energy. (the reason this energy behaves differently from other forms of energy we are used to has to do with wavelength and wave coherence effects, it's actually a tremendous amount of energy, even more than in regular matter)

When the density of space approaches zero, it ceases to exist. This would theoretically mean you could cover a vast distance instantaneously, but of course that distance effectively does not exist either. Because time and space are connected (time can be viewed as just another dimension of space), time ceases to exists. We could represent this space geometrically, but in one sense it would be meaningless to do so.

Some people conjecture that the entire universe is analogous to a black hole. An object could head outwards on an escape trajectory but eventually it will lose energy and head back towards the direction it came. The universe simply has a very large event horizon. The diameter of this effective "event horizon" is of course tied to the universe's density.

What happens inside a black hole? Is everything crushed to a single point? Not exactly. As an object falls into a black hole, that mass is converted into kinetic energy. The inherent rest mass of the object also is effectively reduced as it falls into the gravity well, while much of that mass is transferred into the form of kinetic energy. We can describe this as temperature; the inside of a black hole is very hot. That's somewhat analogous to what happens when you compress a gas; it increases in temperature. (This is because it can't as easily hold kinetic energy because the gas molecules are closer together and more constrained)

As they say, every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. The kinetic energy added to the object as it falls into the black hole (assuming none of that energy was lost) is exactly equal to the force of gravity that pulled it in. What this actually means is that, if a black hole were to somehow have a hollow center, a particle shot into one side of a black hole would emerge from the other side. Now, some say this is impossible! The force of gravity exceeds the speed of light, and nothing can exceed the speed of light. What these people fail to account for is that the object's rest mass has been transferred into the form of kinetic energy while it is in the gravitational well. Indeed, half of this kinetic energy is actually held by the rest of the black hole, not the particle itself (because the black hole actually accelerated a little bit towards the particle).

There is also a third phenomena at play, and that is relativistic existence. When a particle has enough kinetic energy, other particles can exist as a higher energy more massive particle relative to it. Although it sounds bizarre, this is a natural consequence of the conservation of relativity. For an object falling into a black hole approaching relativistic speeds, this could effectively "downgrade" the force of gravitational mediation acting on it. In other words, that gravitational force behaves as a physical particle. (Imagine it from the frame of reference of the particle that has already been accelerated near light speed and is falling in. Relativity tells us that it is impossible to know whether you are moving from within any particular frame of reference. If you're in a train looking out the window, are you moving towards a house or is the house moving towards you? What the object experiences must be the same as if it is standing still. When something else hits it head-on at light speed, obviously if the first object was already moving at near light speed, that second object would have to be moving at twice light speed to be able to replicate an alternate frame of reference if the first object was standing still. Since light speed cannot be exceeded within any reference frame, from the point of view of the first particle the second particle appears to instead take on mass; it sees all that relative velocity as mass rather than kinetic energy. If a particle gains mass, it can be another type of particle)

Last edited: May 20, 2018
2. cerberusBannedDonor

Joined:
Sep 17, 2015
Messages:
25,553
5,359
Trophy Points:
113
Think I'll sit this one out?

3. HereWeGoAgainWell-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 11, 2016
Messages:
17,854
10,143
Trophy Points:
113
Uh, no.

4. kazenatsuWell-Known MemberDonor

Joined:
May 15, 2017
Messages:
12,163
3,438
Trophy Points:
113
Which part exactly do you disagree with, and why?
You don't have to go over everything, just choose two things.

"It can't be true because if it was a scientist would have already told you so"??

You know, not everything you hear repeated over and over again is necessarily true.

Last edited: May 25, 2018
5. KodeWell-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 5, 2016
Messages:
20,396
4,776
Trophy Points:
113
Gender:
Male
Please explain. You cite no sources so I couldn't investigate the answer to my question, and so it appears that the OP is your own "data dump". My question is, can you explain the following sentence: "If you increase the density of space, it appears as though there is more distance between two objects."

Space is a vacuum. What constitutes an increase in the density? Matter increase? That wouldn't change the distance between object. I don't understand. It sounds like an unprovable theory.

6. SpookyWell-Known MemberDonor

Joined:
Nov 29, 2013
Messages:
28,298
11,160
Trophy Points:
113
You only can't go faster than light if you are in a vacuum.

If you aren't there are no limits to how fast you can go.

The expansion of the universe will eclipse the speed of light one day because the expansion doesn't exist in a vacuum, it creates the vacuum as it goes.

Scientists have already proven this by watching very far away galaxies and measuring their light which is fading.

They are moving further away from us due to this expansion and one day even the light from their suns won't be able to reach us because that light is not fast enough to cover the rate of expansion.