Expansion.. space creation out of nothing

[Nuno]

Hi everyone ,

I was thinking about the universe expansion.

So we can think it as the surface of a balloon, and if everything is getting away from everything else, that means that space is being created out of nothing?

What I am trying to say is, considering 2 units of space that are close to each other. For them to get far from each other it means that a new unit of space is being created in between them.

So my question is: is it correct to say that the expansion of the universe is based on the constant creation of new units of space in every single point between the existing units of space that we have today?

If so, I cant stop thinking where do this new portions of space come from or how can they be created out of nothing o.0. The same goes for the fact that if this is how it works then I suppose space is created at a very small fundamental scale, so how come we cant feel it? Unless the speed rate of expansion is too slow for us to even detect it but I don't think that is the reason.

Either way, sorry if it appears confusing, I probably said a lot of nonsense xD but I have nothing to lose I think

Cheers

[Jussi]

It's not just the space between dots on the baloon that is expanding , its the dots as well !

i.e this planet is also expanding,the atoms are also expanding , you could be  miles bigger than you were yesterday ..  , but everything being relative we would never know.

it's mind boggling isnt it. 

Who knows , not me , that's for sure.

[cgarry]

It's not just the space between dots on the baloon that is expanding , its the dots as well !

i.e this planet is also expanding,the atoms are also expanding , you could be  miles bigger than you were yesterday ..  , but everything being relative we would never know.

it's mind boggling isnt it. 

Who knows , not me , that's for sure.

Unless I am very much mistaken that is completely wrong.  Our atoms, our planet and us are still much the same size.

[emadmoussa]

Regardless of any cosmological views on the existence of missing element, the universe is expanding on two levels: distances between celestial objects and changing dynamics of the atom electrons.

Where and how this happens is still within the realm of speculation. The expansion and the Big Bang are well founded theories, but again, the dynamics and engine of these processes are still unknown. The growing hypothesis argues in favor of dark matter which we don't really know much about. Even if such an element has been decrypted, there's still much to say about the founding criteria.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

There are laws governing conservation of mass( = energy), momentum, angular momentum and a few others, but not on space, or time for that matter. More time gets created all the time

[Tiki]

What I am trying to say is, considering 2 units of space that are close to each other. For them to get far from each other it means that a new unit of space is being created in between them.

Cheers

Perhaps it could be that the two units of space are co-joined and are in fact one. As time flows, an obserever who wasn't subject to the expansion of space himself would see the 'piece' of space grow. Those who lived in the expanding space would not notice any direct change. 'Space' may just simply grow rather than pop into existence out of nothingness.

@ Michael. It seems to me that less time gets created all the time.

[Nuno]

I tend to think that for an object (in this case space) to grow, something must be added to this object from some source.

If we could see a single unit of space (or the whole space) as a 1cm^2 flat paper, then if it expands or grows to a 2cm^2 the added space  (difference between 2cm^2 and 1cm^2 ) must have come from somewhere xD

But yeah, what do we know xD maybe this is just something completely different

Cheers

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

As long as space has no fixed mass, energy, charge, momentum per unit of volume you can make as much of it as you like.

[Qualia]

So we can think it as the surface of a balloon, and if everything is getting away from everything else, that means that space is being created out of nothing?

I'm sorry if I'm being dumb and haven't caught the question but I don't follow the conclusion. Or in better terms, it might come down to just a simple play with words. I'm not sure, but here goes...

Expanding Universe Example

If I picture the cosmos as the surface of an expanding balloon, I can imagine i) the balloon expanding into something and ii) that some other thing is needed to help with the expansion, an anti-gravity principle, say, which in the balloon's case is my breath. But I cannot conclude from this that new pieces of balloon have been created. If I place two dots on my deflated balloon and label them galaxy 1 and 2 and the distance between them I label space and then I expand the balloon with air, I can watch the bit of rubber expand into a balloon shape thing and watch the galaxies move away from each other as the balloon and space between them expands, but I haven't created new balloon stuff in the process.

Stretching Universe Example

If I picture the cosmos as the surface of a stretching balloon, one that isn't pumped up but simply stretched, I can imagine i) that the balloon isn't being stretched into anything particular and ii) that some other thing is needed to help with this stretching process, again, our anti-gravity principle. But, I still cannot conclude that new bits of balloon have been created. If I place two dots on my deflated balloon and label them galaxy 1 and 2 and the distance between them I label space and then I stretch the balloon, I no longer see the galaxies moving away from each other as in the above scenario, but instead, watch them just sitting their as the space bewteen them stretches out and eventually see the galaxies stretch out and smear as well. They haven't really moved in the same sense as the above example. But again, I still arrive to the same conclusion, even with the stretching game, I haven't created new balloon stuff, new space.

I'm not sure if this helps or if it has answered the question but please accept it as my understanding of the current theory/situation.

[ollypenrice]

Hi everyone ,

I was thinking about the universe expansion.

So we can think it as the surface of a balloon, and if everything is getting away from everything else, that means that space is being created out of nothing?

What I am trying to say is, considering 2 units of space that are close to each other. For them to get far from each other it means that a new unit of space is being created in between them.

So my question is: is it correct to say that the expansion of the universe is based on the constant creation of new units of space in every single point between the existing units of space that we have today?

If so, I cant stop thinking where do this new portions of space come from or how can they be created out of nothing o.0. The same goes for the fact that if this is how it works then I suppose space is created at a very small fundamental scale, so how come we cant feel it? Unless the speed rate of expansion is too slow for us to even detect it but I don't think that is the reason.

Either way, sorry if it appears confusing, I probably said a lot of nonsense xD but I have nothing to lose I think

Cheers

I think there are some misleading terms in your post.

Beware of 'nothing.' It doesn't seem to exist. Try John D Barrow's The Book of Nothing. Wonderful stuff! Besides, if 'nothing' does exist, why is anything needed to create more of it? 

'Units' of space. The units themselves expand.

It's not just the space between dots on the baloon that is expanding , its the dots as well !

i.e this planet is also expanding,the atoms are also expanding , you could be  miles bigger than you were yesterday ..  , but everything being relative we would never know.

it's mind boggling isnt it. 

Who knows , not me , that's for sure.

The expansion of the universe is actually very slow on small local scales and is easily overwhelmed by gravity, which completely arrests it. Things like galaxies are 'gravitationally bound' and so are not expanding. The space between them, though, is thought to be expanding.

Olly

[kirkster501]

I think we know 0.00000000000001% of this subject. 

[ollypenrice]

I think we know 0.00000000000001% of this subject. 

I agree and I don't. We have models which, within their own terms of reference, are very strongly evidence based and draw on independent observations, not of a single pehenomenon but of many. Einstein's equations for the variabiltity of spactime do work. It's as simple as that. Put an atomic clock into an accelerated frame of reference and it runs slow in precise agreement with his equations. The signals from non geo-stationary GPS satellites have to be processed through relativistic equations in order to work, and then they do work. This can't be a coincidence. So it would be illogical for person X to dismiss relativity and continue to use a GPS (or a host of other appliances) because person X dosen't believe they work.

On the other hand, while relativity changed our understanding of space and time there is no reason to image that it gave us a final or complete understanding of them. I don't believe it did. So I prefer to identify carefully what it is is I think we know and what it is I think we don't know. I wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I do believe that what we call space is expanding. The word 'expanding,' though, only makes sense within our present understanding of space. 'Space' and 'expansion' are both expressions of the same understanding of the dimensions we perceive.  If we had a different understanding of space the concept of 'expansion' might disappear and be replaced by a concept consistent with this new understanding.

I guess, though, that I'd rather travel as far into understanding as possible rather than despair and give up all spirit of enquiry. But, yes, doubt is a part of scientific understanding.

Olly

[Tiki]

I think we know 0.00000000000001% of this subject. 

Which implies of course that we know very precisely what there is to be known.

With regards to the expansion of space, I think we know an awful lot. Unfortunately the rate of expansion is such that it puts the critical density of the Universe very close to a crucial density figure which make long term predictions as to the ultimate fate of the Universe somewhat difficult. This is a triumph rather than a shortcoming of science.

[ollypenrice]

Which implies of course that we know very precisely what there is to be known.

With regards to the expansion of space, I think we know an awful lot. Unfortunately the rate of expansion is such that it puts the critical density of the Universe very close to a crucial density figure which make long term predictions as to the ultimate fate of the Universe somewhat difficult. This is a triumph rather than a shortcoming of science.

Where do you stand on this cloeness to critical density though? Do you see it as, perhaps, an indication that we might inadvertently be violating the Copernican principle?

Olly

[Tiki]

Where do you stand on this cloeness to critical density though? Do you see it as, perhaps, an indication that we might inadvertently be violating the Copernican principle?

Olly

Alas, I no longer rub shoulders with cosmologists and my own knowledge is sadly lacking so I can't really help with your question. The fact that the Universe is so very close (if not actually) to being flat is something that I have marveled at for some time now. Our 'knowledge' of the macroscopic Universe could quite possibly be a consequence of our location. There have been a number of models I believe that assume density fluctuations on a relatively large scale. It is undoubtedly interesting stuff and a subject that I feel that we will be hearing more about in the future.

The Copernican Principle could prove to be erroneous.

Being somewhat feeble-minded I can't make the link between near flatness and 'local' inhomogenities in matter distribution. Please help if you can.

[rory]

now heres where I get confused. IF we accept the big bang theory that lead to our universes birth and expansion. that expansion has to actually have the room to expand in the first place does it not ?

 so there must be an area for the whole process to take place.  I cant get my head around this .

[Qualia]

Rory, I think this is a very legitimate concern. As the example I wrote tried to show above, if we imagine the universe as having a finite size and expanding, we can imagine it expanding in something. However, it might be better just to imagine it as already-always having infinite size and it just stretching, so it's not really changing its size nor expanding into anything outside. If that makes sense

[rory]

Rory, I think this is a very legitimate concern. As the example I wrote tried to show above, if we imagine the universe as having a finite size and expanding, we can imagine it expanding in something. However, it might be better just to imagine it as already-always having infinite size and it just stretching, so it's not really changing its size nor expanding into anything outside. If that makes sense

I guess its as much as a explanation as were able to conclude with our human capacity of making sense of such humungous questions. but even if its stretching ,there must be "room" for that stretching ? or is that me being too simplistic perhaps.

[Qualia]

Rory, it really is a great question! Im not sure but perhaps

short video might help. I don't think it really supplies any solid answer but may trigger more questioning . One curious aspect is the use of the "it's a nonsense question" trump-card - implying rather erroneously that there is something wrong with us! - which smacks me of those cheeky "self-evident" assertions theologians are want to bandy about. The trick, I guess, is never to feel or be bullied .

[Zakalwe]

 IF we accept the big bang theory that lead to our universes birth and expansion. that expansion has to actually have the room to expand in the first place does it not ?

Why does it? So it can fit into the limited understanding of a slightly evolved monkey brain?

As far as I understand it, space and time both came into being at the moment of the big bang. The Universe is not expanding into anything.

This page might help:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

[ollypenrice]

Alas, I no longer rub shoulders with cosmologists and my own knowledge is sadly lacking so I can't really help with your question. The fact that the Universe is so very close (if not actually) to being flat is something that I have marveled at for some time now. Our 'knowledge' of the macroscopic Universe could quite possibly be a consequence of our location. There have been a number of models I believe that assume density fluctuations on a relatively large scale. It is undoubtedly interesting stuff and a subject that I feel that we will be hearing more about in the future.

The Copernican Principle could prove to be erroneous.

Being somewhat feeble-minded I can't make the link between near flatness and 'local' inhomogenities in matter distribution. Please help if you can.

The Copernican principle, for me, is no more than a warning. It isn't a law of physics, not that I think you're saying otherwise. The philosophical question is tricky, though. Should we say, 'It's not surprizing that the universe is roughly flat because we wouldn't be here if it weren't,' or should we say, 'The universe seems to be roughly flat when it could have any curvature it likes, so is it just our local perspective that makes it look flat?' A five pound postal order to the first correct answer... 

lly

[rory]

Why does it? So it can fit into the limited understanding of a slightly evolved monkey brain?

As far as I understand it, space and time both came into being at the moment of the big bang. The Universe is not expanding into anything.

This page might help:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Thanks for that link , I shall have a read.

I totally get where your coming from regarding our brains . ( particularly mine ! ) capability to understand such conundrums.

I'm the guy who enjoyed reading the first chapter of " brief history of time" before becoming completely out of my depth by chapter two . Lol .