[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.45 MB, 2048x1536, heic0611b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15391783 No.15391783 [Reply] [Original]

Why is the universe expanding?

>> No.15391786

>>15391783
it is not (the local claster is told to be contracting (but I'm not sure that it is also true))

>> No.15391954

Why does the universe even exist at all and why does it have a specific beginning 13.8 billion years ago? How can something just come from nothing. It's almost like the universe is a computer program.

>> No.15391960

>>15391783
What is it expanding "into" is what I always want to know.

>> No.15392005

IT DA BIG BANG BRO! WE DA BOMB!

>> No.15392021

Where did the energy come from to compress the universe to its initial superdense state so that the so-called big bang could occur?

>> No.15392024

>>15391954
Best not to think about it.

>> No.15392028

>>15391954
>>15391960
>>15392021
all are valid questions, each of which may refute the bug bing ball shot

>> No.15392030

>>15392024
jesuit faggot, fuckoff, kudasai

>> No.15392473

Why did the universe start exactly 13.8 billion years ago? What was there before that?

>> No.15392475

>>15391783
dark energy, dark matter, dark skin niggers

>> No.15392568

>>15392473
The big bang theory doesn't really deal with the why part of your question. If you have a look here at the planck epoch which is the start it just says
>the start of the earliest meaningful time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_early_universe#Planck_epoch

So basically the entire universe with all its matter, because matter can't be created or destroyed, was compressed into what a lot of articles will say is a singularity but others say just an extremely small volume, far smaller than a single atom but not infinitely small, which I think is easier to visualize. But the theory doesn't talk about where it came from or if it was always there or what happened before that, and it doesn't say it appeared from nothing either.

The craziest part I reckon, apart from the fact the universe exists at all, is the inflation epoch which occurred only a fraction of a second after the planck epoch and only lasted for a fraction of a second. Within a fraction of a second the universe expanded from a few nanometers in diameter to several light years in diameter

Some other theories are the various cyclic theories like the big bounce or conformal cyclic cosmology where the universe never really ends it just shrinks or disintegrates and after some time begins again. And another theory is in brane cosmology where huge 3d branes in a higher dimensional space collided which created the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

>> No.15392574
File: 145 KB, 1200x675, NASA RTX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15392574

>>15391783

>> No.15393832

>>15392574
Explain?

>> No.15394141

>>15391783
jews

>> No.15394213

>>15391783
Universe's BMI is only about 0.13, Chud. Stop body shaming it.

>> No.15394222

>>15391783
Go ask someone who is qualified not these people on some Jap forum.

>> No.15394263

>>15393832
more gigarays for tracing the universe, NASA finest render

>> No.15394307
File: 234 KB, 640x719, 1682452822932.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15394307

Ackshually it's not expanding, it's conspanding! Contraction and expansion at the same time.

>> No.15394312

>>15391783
to account for the constantly increasing size of your mom

>> No.15394336

If the universe is infinite, how can it expand? This is what I don't understand.

>> No.15394338

>>15391954
but who is the computer, it should have beginning too

>> No.15394347

>>15391783
According to the equations of general relativity it's not so easy to set up a static universe which is neither expanding nor contracting. It shouldn't be a surprise that the universe is doing one or the other.

>> No.15394351

>>15391783
I don't believe it is

>> No.15394362

>>15394336
I don't think it's exactly infinite but for observers it might as well be.

>> No.15394382

>>15394336
No one knows whether the universe is compact (finite) or not, but it doesn't matter as far as expansion is concerned. If the distance between any two points of space is increasing with time then it is expanding.

>> No.15394487

>>15392568
Isn't everything before the CMB conjecture? What experimental or observational evidence is there from before what they say is 370,000 years after the start?

>> No.15394488

>>15394487
Even the CMB is conjecture. Some measurements say it doesn't exist at all.

>> No.15394500
File: 17 KB, 480x294, magnetosphere%20cropped[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15394500

>This diagram reveals changes in the rate of expansion since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago. The more shallow the curve, the faster the rate of expansion. The curve changes noticeably about 7.5 billion years ago, when objects in the universe began flying apart as a faster rate. Astronomers theorize that the faster expansion rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pulling galaxies apart.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

There you have it. It's a "mysterious, dark force."

>> No.15394505

>>15393832
Left: Hubble
Right: James Webb

In reality they just added more lights and smudges. The earth is flat with a dome. All these telescopes are complete fraud including all the images they produce.

>> No.15394579

>>15394505
>The earth is flat with a dome.
hoiw much are you actually paid to post here?

>> No.15394616

>>15394487
I'm not him, but there is some observational evidence earlier than the CMB. The main one is primordial nucleosynthesis. The observed abundances of isotopes of light elements pretty much agrees with the calculation from big bang cosmology. It doesn't quite work out for lithium though.

>> No.15394660

>>15394616
It's mostly the Planck epoch that concerns me. I don't think people can say shit about it yet it seems like they try and pass it off as plausible not just conjecture.

>> No.15394698

>>15394660
You're right. No real physicist claims they can say anything about the earliest moments of the big bang with any certainty.

>> No.15394746

>>15391954
How do you know there was nothing before the big bang? Nobody knows or will ever know. Why? Bc how do you test for that?

>> No.15394793 [DELETED] 
File: 277 KB, 512x512, 1682437911584005.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15394793

>>15391954
>>15392021
it did not come from nothing, it came from a singularity. What that came from is unobservable and thus in science babble means does not exist. For all anybody knows there exist a connection between black hole singularities and the big bang. Maybe they act as cosmic jannies cleaning up all the shit from the old universe, merging eventually to such gigantic proportions as hawking radiation is a real nothingburger of an effect with how slow it is and if a black ho singularity reaches a certain threshold it eventually violently explodes, seeding a new universe with hydrogen. its anybodies guess as we simply cant never see what came before

>> No.15394806

>>15391783
How is the universe expanding? Is there a set limit of space that it's filling or does it simply create more space? If so what is it filling up and what's beyond that space?

>> No.15394855

>>15394806
I don't understand this either. If the universe is expanding shouldn't I be growing taller and fatter every year?

>> No.15394859

>>15394855
Maybe we just cant comprehend that growth because we exist inside the universe? To us we haven't changed at all but maybe we've stretched a seemingly infinite amount in just the past second? I love thinking about this stuff but it drives me crazy that I'll never get a real 100% answer until I die.

>> No.15394863

>>15394336
>If the universe is infinite
It's not. Infinity isn't real. It's only a concept.

>> No.15394864 [DELETED] 

>>15394855
The effect is extremely weak, so gravity the forces holding your body together counteract it. That's why it's only noticeable in empty regions of space, and why galaxies are drifting apart from eachother rather than getting ripped apart

>> No.15394865

>>15394859
Stretched relative to what though? Is the volume enclosed by our protons and neutrons increasing? Is the radius of the electron cloud around each atom increasing? What does it all mean? Yes I am stupid and I wish somebody would explain this stuff more comprehensibly.

>> No.15394866

>>15394855
The effect is extremely weak, so gravity and the forces holding your body together counteract it. That's why it's only noticeable in empty regions of space, and why galaxies are drifting apart from eachother rather than getting ripped apart

>> No.15394877

>>15394865
I dont know, We'll never understand it and that's the frustrating thing. There's an infinite number of explanations and possibilities and even infinite is not truly infinite because of our understanding of infinite not being infinite. We will never understand anything

>> No.15394907

>>15394793
>it came from a singularity
Where's your evidence for this singularity? Can you observe it?

>> No.15395132

>>15391783
Because It's trying to get away from the queers.

>> No.15395504

>>15391783
Because there is more anti-matter, creating a repellent force, than there is matter, creating an attractive force.

>> No.15396543

>>15391783
what was the problem with the steady-state universe?

>> No.15396579

>>15394488
Wrong. It has been detected and confirmed by hundreds of instruments. It is as experimentally solid.
>But but this one guy claimed not to find it, but didn't publish his data and or his sensitivity.

>> No.15396599

>>15396543
>Doesn't explain the existence of the CMB. Predicts any background should be fixed in temperature with redshift, not what is observed.
>Galaxies shouldn't evolve with redshift, and yet they do.

>> No.15396659

>>15391954
science experiment gone wrong by a previous civilisation

>> No.15396765
File: 873 KB, 786x960, 1658913845762205.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15396765

>>15394579
Zero. On one hand it feels like a moral duty to fight back against the globohomo narratives. On the hand I don't really care anymore but there is not much else to do since the surveillance grid is already up and running.

tldr; it's over, globohomo won and is in complete control, we can only watch and shitpost

>> No.15396867

>>15396765
This is a science board, if you want to push claims that have zero scientific proof, then go to /x/

>> No.15396881
File: 86 KB, 558x364, real retard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15396881

>>15396867
>claims that have zero scientific proof
Ironic

>> No.15396882

This is the worst board on this website.

>> No.15396900

>>15394865
This guy does a good job at explaining it:
physics.stackexchange.com/q/33704

>> No.15396905

>>15396881
bait harder. Pseud.

>> No.15397192

>>15391954
>How can something spring from nothing
How can time have a beginning? How can it end around a singularity?
The truth of the matter is we don't know all the answers, we can only Infer from observations. And we most certainly don't know "why" things are the way that they are, we can only seek to construct a model of the way things are as a tool to help us utilize, control and overcome.
We don't know what happened before the big bang. Experimentation and observation line up with the early universe being hot and dense, with matter and antimatter being generated plentifuly and randomly akin to in the highest energy collisions in the LHC and in cosmic rays. The models aren't accurate enough to extrapolate further or see the beginning, especially as pertains to gravity. We can guess based on fringe ideas like false vacuum decay, which would imply that the energy of the Big bang comes from one of the fundamental fields having been in a higher energy state and getting bounced out of it to fall lower and release it all into space-time when a sufficient energy density was achieved. This ties into the "Universe reproduction" hypothesis where every black hole is a new universe's beginning, creating a vacuum decay before a singularity can form but leaving the echo of its mass behind due to its relativistic acceleration

>> No.15397196

>>15391960
Well it's infinite as far as we can tell so there's no "into"
Things are getting further apart and light being redshifted proportional to distance tells us it's due to the space itself changing rather than things simply being further apart

>> No.15397209

>>15396881
there is all proof that the earth is round
stop posting

>> No.15397258

>>15391960
Not universe yet :D

>> No.15397495

>>15394793

A singularity (which insofar only exists as a math scrible) is created in one universe, and it expands into another?

Is it experimentally possible to observe mass falling into a BH and observing how much equivalent EM energy is ejected back into our own universe to make a discernable measurement about what may be happening on the otherside?

How long might we have to make such an observation? Until the BH evaporates? If BH evaporation is true, then what implications does it have for the universe on the other side? Is that a big crunch?

Perhaps expansion only occurs as mass is being pulled into our parent black hole, as the mass runs out, evaporation and jetting take precedence and the expansion of the inner universe beyond the black hole slow down.

1. Perform the mass/energy experiment. Is more matter consumed than ejected?

2. Attempt to measure changes in the expansion rate of our own universe. Are there deviations that occur? Should we expect deviations, or should we expect a constant rate until which time the black hole on the other side of our universe simply has nothing left to consume? How would we be able even understand the implications of sich deviations woth an arbitrary degree of confidence?

If any of this is the case, can we even call them separate universes considering how intrinsically tied to ours they are?

Likewise does the situation happen recursively?

There are too many questions and not enough answers. It's going to be thousands upon thousands of years before we can even hope to answer them and without being appropriately close to a back hole to perform measurements, we may just be out of luck.

We'd only have 1 data point. Just like we have 1 data point for life in the universe.

You might imagine that it is recursive. It all comes from a single, timeless parent/seed universe. There is no expansion there.

So what's at the end, and how did it get there?

At some point we might as well just believe in God

>> No.15397500

>>15391783
To make room for your mom

>> No.15397508

>>15392024
this post best post

>> No.15398213

>>15394336
even if it's infinite it can still expand. The expansion is like stretching, not growing

>> No.15398219

>>15394487
yeah there's no direct evidence of the big bang right now. But if you mathematically extrapolate everything back in time, taking inflation etc into account, then you end up with a singularity. And because of the conditions at the time it's expected that the singularity didn't slowly grow to be the size of the universe but instead it really rapidly expanded within seconds and then started to expand more slowly

>> No.15398235

>>15397495
>At some point we might as well just believe in God
the scientific way to approach it is to not assume anything. An assumption being where you lay out some theory and then assume it's true without verifying it. People may talk about the big bang theory as though it's fact but really it's not, it's just the most probable based on existing science. Maybe God is real, but there's no tests you can perform to see if God exists and you can't create a mathematical theory around the universe being created by God which is why the idea is basically ignored in the scientific community, it's unfalsifiable whereas with the big bang theory there are more empirical tests we can carry out to see if it actually happened. It's also important to remember that the big bang theory doesn't include any claims regarding the creation of the universe, it just states that the universe was very small, then there was a bang, then it was big