Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: nuny on 2 Aug 2010 07:18 On Jul 31, 9:49 pm, Kali Hawa <kalih...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Can a bigbang occur within our Universe? Analogously speaking, the Big Bang was a phase transition of the vacuum. Phase transition as in ice turning to water, or water to vapor. Same "stuff", just arranged differently, with different ranges of possible textures (short- and long-range structural possibilities- "steam crystals" doesn't make sense, not does "ice vapor"), different kinds of waves/particles it can support, stuff like that. In other words the vacuum can have more than one energy level pretty much like collections of particles of matter can. Before the Big Bang it couldn't support what we call "length" or "time", much less "matter" or "energy". Now, it can (and does). You're asking if the vacuum has other possible phases it can change into. Nobody knows. That's probably a good thing because if it is possible to force some vacuum to change its phase, somebody might try to do it. The new phase might start expanding like ice crystals expand into freezing water, like the Big Bang did, probably making it unable to support us. So I have to say I hope it isn't possible. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Huang on 2 Aug 2010 08:50 On Aug 2, 3:17 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:faWdneJfa_TglcvRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > > > > > > > On 8/1/10 6:32 PM, Huang wrote: > >> On Aug 1, 6:26 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 8/1/10 1:53 PM, Huang wrote: > > >>>> Velocity of light is indeed the same in all frames of reference. So > >>>> why should we expect that redshift implies expansion "exclusively". It > >>>> does not. > > >>> Velocity of light, more correctly the speed of light is independent > >>> of redshift! > > >> Ok, fine. Speed of light is independent of redshift. > > >> Surely you would agree that if we were contracting locally that we > >> would expect to observe redshift. > > > Blueshift! > > I read "Bullshit!". Either is correct.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Not sure what you mean. What is bullshit ? All Im saying is that a contracting universe should be equivalent to an expanding one. How is that bullshit ? Sam - they are "equivalent", not the same, just equivalent.
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Aug 2010 09:04 On 8/2/10 7:50 AM, Huang wrote: > On Aug 2, 3:17 am, "Peter Webb"<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Sam Wormley"<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:faWdneJfa_TglcvRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 8/1/10 6:32 PM, Huang wrote: >>>> On Aug 1, 6:26 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/1/10 1:53 PM, Huang wrote: >> >>>>>> Velocity of light is indeed the same in all frames of reference. So >>>>>> why should we expect that redshift implies expansion "exclusively". It >>>>>> does not. >> >>>>> Velocity of light, more correctly the speed of light is independent >>>>> of redshift! >> >>>> Ok, fine. Speed of light is independent of redshift. >> >>>> Surely you would agree that if we were contracting locally that we >>>> would expect to observe redshift. >> >>> Blueshift! >> >> I read "Bullshit!". Either is correct.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > Not sure what you mean. What is bullshit ? > > All Im saying is that a contracting universe should be equivalent to > an expanding one. > > How is that bullshit ? > > Sam - they are "equivalent", not the same, just equivalent. > Observers in an expanding universe would expect to measure cosmic redshift, whereas observers in a contracting universe would expect to measure cosmic blue shift. In the latter case, observer might INCORRECTLY think of themselves as the only target! No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: Huang on 2 Aug 2010 11:30 On Aug 2, 8:04 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 7:50 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 3:17 am, "Peter Webb"<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > >> "Sam Wormley"<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:faWdneJfa_TglcvRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > > >>> On 8/1/10 6:32 PM, Huang wrote: > >>>> On Aug 1, 6:26 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 8/1/10 1:53 PM, Huang wrote: > > >>>>>> Velocity of light is indeed the same in all frames of reference. So > >>>>>> why should we expect that redshift implies expansion "exclusively".. It > >>>>>> does not. > > >>>>> Velocity of light, more correctly the speed of light is independent > >>>>> of redshift! > > >>>> Ok, fine. Speed of light is independent of redshift. > > >>>> Surely you would agree that if we were contracting locally that we > >>>> would expect to observe redshift. > > >>> Blueshift! > > >> I read "Bullshit!". Either is correct.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Not sure what you mean. What is bullshit ? > > > All Im saying is that a contracting universe should be equivalent to > > an expanding one. > > > How is that bullshit ? > > > Sam - they are "equivalent", not the same, just equivalent. > > Observers in an expanding universe would expect to measure cosmic > redshift, whereas observers in a contracting universe would expect > to measure cosmic blue shift. In the latter case, observer might > INCORRECTLY think of themselves as the only target! > > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If we are contracting away from deep space, then light and other frequencies eminating from deep space would indeed be red shifted. The only way you would see blueshift is by observing a frequency of somethign that we are contracting toward. I dont know how to set up such an experiment to look for such a blueshift. But certainly this is just a simple doppler effect, either space is expanding away from us, or we are contracting away from it. I would expect to see redshift in either scenario. But there is an entirely different approach to this anyway. Using conjectural methods, all you need to say is that the existential potential in this region is increasing, which results in the appearance that space is expanding. An apparent expansion, when it is in fact merely an increase in the existential potential. I believe that light would be redshifted whether the universe expands, or we are contracting locally. I think these scenarios are equivalent. It's really no different than any other doppler effect experiment except it's relativistic.
From: Huang on 2 Aug 2010 11:39
> If we are contracting away from deep space, then light and other > frequencies eminating from deep space would indeed be red shifted. > > The only way you would see blueshift is by observing a frequency of > somethign that we are contracting toward. I dont know how to set up > such an experiment to look for such a blueshift. > > But certainly this is just a simple doppler effect, either space is > expanding away from us, or we are contracting away from it. I would > expect to see redshift in either scenario. > > But there is an entirely different approach to this anyway. Using > conjectural methods, all you need to say is that the existential > potential in this region is increasing, which results in the > appearance that space is expanding. An apparent expansion, when it is > in fact merely an increase in the existential potential. > > I believe that light would be redshifted whether the universe expands, > or we are contracting locally. I think these scenarios are equivalent. > It's really no different than any other doppler effect experiment > except it's relativistic.- Hide quoted text - > But I think that Sam is really missing the big picture by simply refering back to dogma links. If expansion is equivalent to contraction, then we can easily derive the maximal time segment that can exist in the universe. It is a very simple calculation, and it's already half done because bigbang cosmologists have already calculated the age of the universe based on expansion. Calculate how long it will take to crunch based on contraction and you have your maximal length possible for a segment of time. |