510

submitted 2 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The answer is there's no such thing as absolute distance. Because there's no such thing as absolute position. Quantum garuntees inaccuracies in position.

And your right. We can't actually measure the expansion of the universe directly. It's actually because of the red shift we do.

The reason we can see the red shift is because the universe holds the speed of light in a vacuum constant.

So if the universe is expanding, and the speed of light is expanding with it, in-order for the speed of light to stay the same, it has to travel more distance in a time. Meaning it's stretching it's wavelength as it moves. Just like something moving away from us does. IIRC it's because of observations that everything is constantly moving further from us, the further out you go, the faster it's moving away.

But everything is moving from everything, including itself.

I do apologize if I'm a little muddy, I did my physics degree about a decade ago.

Edit as for why gravitational waves travel at the same as E&M waves is because "information" is what travels at the speed of light. For an electro magnetic wave that's disturbances in E&M. For gravity that's ripples in the fabric of space-time. For quantum there's experiments showing that entangled particles will collapse together, if sperated by distance, the lag time is also the speed of light.

EDIT 2:

The only thing faster than the speed of light, is actually the expansion of the universe beyond a certain distance. Don't remember what it is. But because distance istself is expanding, that's proportional to distance. So the expansion rate is actually faster than the speed of light far enough out. But no SINGLE point is expanding faster than the speed of light.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

If there's no such thing as absolute distance, then how can you say that a metre bar (and the metre) is larger than it used to be?

If distance is relative, and matter isn't expanding relative to anything else, then matter isn't expanding.

We ultimately define distance in terms of c, and the fundamental forces agree with this. We do not observe atoms expanding, but we do observe the space between galaxies expanding. Presumably the space we occupy is also expanding, but it's such a small effect as to be irrelevant.

Back to my original question, is the boundary between irrelevantly small and detectable above or below the galactic scale?

[-] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think the trouble is also partly based around thinking of then universe as a volume, which implies a centre. And that's where this analogy falls apart.

Because everything is expanding from everything, there is no centre. YOU are always centre. So you are "expanding" but you don't change volume.

This is why I keep saying space isn't getting bigger, distance is.

It's not that a sheet of paper becoming bigger so the grid paper becomes larger,. It's changing it's distance of something, not it's size and shape.

We don't observe galaxies getting bigger. We observe them constantly moving away from us. Even. When they're moving to us, but it's done at a slower pace than expected. The further away you are, the faster you move away. And it's a universal constant of 73km/s/Mpsc.

Notice that is a speed per distance. It's not saying space is getting bigger, it's saying things are moving faster away from you the further you go away.

The universe isn't expanding like a loaf of bread because it has a volume. It's expanding from one volume to another. Where the universe doesn't.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Not thinking of cosmic expansion as a volume expanding is an interesting thought.

It does imply that the changing distance only happens at large distances though. "Faster-than-light" expansion is already non-local (I think), but all expansion being non-local is consistent with it being driven by vacuum energy. That kinda makes the rasin bread analogy stronger, as the rasins don't expand at all.

I wonder if we could detect frame-dragging at large distances. If expansion causes frame-dragging, then it's actually a change in space, not just distance.

I wonder if linear motion can even cause frame-dragging, or if it's just rotation that causes it. I do not know enough about the math to say.

[-] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

So it does happen on a small local scale though. It happens on ALL scales.

But everything is expanding from everything. Meaning the observer is always centred of the expansion. This is because volume is constant. The rasins themselves do expand, but locally it's such a small scale (10^-23 m/s for our solar system).

This also works for how we understand the change in density. Volume is constant, but we've gone from infinitely dense to almost nothing.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

We went over this, we observe the distance between galaxies increasing, but the distance between atoms has not.

The expansion happens everywhere, but subatomic forces massively overpower the expansion, so atoms don't expand.

Likewise, raisins are strong enough to not get pulled apart by the expanding bread. There may be slight force on them, but the bread expanding by a factor of 2 leaves the raisins the same size.

I don't understand how you think a change in distance can be detectable by light between galaxies, but not detectable by like between ends of a metre bar, or between electrons.

[-] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago

You are correct that the raisins would have other constraints to keep it from infitatly expanding into nothing. Not because it's not expanding but because it has external constraints like gravity keeping it there.

They do have expansion applied to them, but gravity and other things effecting space time would be keeping it on place.

As for attoms, I think you picture something solid. But there's not. The electrons are getting further from the nucleas, but it's still bound quantum mechanically to the attoms regardless of its position.

But then the nucleas isn't soldi either. It's made of smaller things yet, and so on and so forth. So inside would also be expanding. But again other forces at play would bind things together.

The expansion is also not a force. It can't overcome other forces so it keeps things in line.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Yes, atoms are made of smaller parts; electron orbitals change chemistry based on their distance from the nucleus, nucleons change the chances of emitting radiation based on their distance from each other, and quarks greating increase their mutual attraction based on distance.

The relative distance between fundamental particles is governed primarily by forces which don't seem to have changed much since nucleosynthesis. If expansion doesn't affect any of this, then saying things governed by forces are expanding is nonsensical.

I can see a perspective where time is slowing down, reducing the effective range of the forces and letting all matter shrink to fit the changing effective distance, and leaving unbound matter to appear to expand. However, I can't see how this would be meaningfully different from an expansion of all space, not how such a difference might be detected.

Regardless, the distances within atoms continue to behave consistently, while the distances within galactic superclusters do not.