[ 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: 168 KB, 343x450, mindblown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2445989 No.2445989 [Reply] [Original]

The universe is expanding. This is said to be accomplished through the stretching of space. How can you stretch a void?

>> No.2446012

Think of it like a piece of elastic. You can stretch it without ever adding anything to the system.

>> No.2446009

>How can you stretch a void?
You don't "do" it. It's just happening.

>> No.2446037

>>2446009

Ok, but how? What does this even mean?

I am on one side of a vacant cubic meter, you are on the other side of a vacant cubic meter. Then, through the natural expansion of space, there is 1.5 vacant cubic meters between us? Where did this 0.5 cubic meters of vacancy come from?
>>2446012
>Implying complete emptiness has all the properties of elastic matter

>> No.2446054

>>2446037
>Where did this 0.5 cubic meters of vacancy come from?
Vacuum is not a substance. It is not conserved.

>> No.2446067

>>2445989
I don't know. However, it is, because that's what the evidence says.

>> No.2446083

>>2446054

But it causes displacement between objects. So though it is not conserved, it does have a measurable effect on the system. What is the cause of this effect?

>> No.2446100

>>2446083
>But it causes displacement between objects.
No. It IS the displacement between the objects.

>> No.2446105

>>2446083
Again, "I don't know. However, it is, because that's what the evidence says."

Science cannot and will never explain everything. Each possible explanation begets another "Why?" question. This cannot be turtles all of the way down. Eventually this infinite regress of known explanations must end with "I don't know. It is because that's what the evidence says."

Learn to science.

Now, if you're asking if we have a model which explains that, then I'll let the knowledgeable astrophysicists answer that question, but even they must eventually explain something with "I don't know. It is because that's what the evidence says."

>> No.2446108

Dough filled with raisins.

>> No.2446142

>>2446105

I've been looking into this for awhile. I've seen the evidence, and it makes sense. It seems to be the best explanation for the redshift over 1.4 that can be observed on distant galaxies. However, I am very curious as to how this expansion actually works. If it is one of those "our (my) feeble human minds cannot comprehend" things, then so be it. I was really just hoping somebody had something better than "it just is! lol".
>>2446100
The measurable distance between the objects is the displacement. It doesn't matter what is in between. Mechanical physics says that some sort of force or work needs to be in play in order for displacement to increase. The void IS the displacement, but it is also the cause of the increase in displacement. On earth, displacements don't just increase all on their own. Supposedly, it is because gravity overtakes the force of expansion. I am wondering what this expansion would look like. Visibly watching empty space grow, with seemingly no outside force causing it?
>>2446108
Die. dough =/= vacuum.

>> No.2446147

>>2446142
Again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. You cannot know an infinite number of explanations, and thus everything cannot be explained. /Every/ series of scientific explanations must end with "I don't know. It is because that's what the evidence says."

>> No.2446154

>>2446142
>Mechanical physics says that some sort of force or work needs to be in play in order for displacement to increase.
Classical mechanical physics is drastic simplification. An approximation. It is wrong.

>> No.2446163

>>2446142
>I am wondering what this expansion would look like. Visibly watching empty space grow, with seemingly no outside force causing it?
At this point, it is either referred to as simply the expansion of the universe, the cosmological constant, or an effect of "dark energy", which no one understands.

>> No.2446172

Space itself is not expanding - this is a popular misconception. Rather, there is a small repulsive force between objects that becomes the dominant force at intergalactic distances.

>> No.2446181

>>2446147

>everything cannot be explained.
Someday it could be

The reason you can't have an infinite number of answers is because you can't have an infinite number of questions. For every question, there is an answer. There is a real answer to my question, apparently we just don't know it right now.

Before modern chemistry, people were able to make steel. They didn't know all of the reasons behind it, but they knew that it could be done. Now we have the chemistry to show why.

Right now, we "know" that space expands, we just don't know why.

>> No.2446183

>>2446172
Citations please.

>> No.2446190

>>2446181
> >everything cannot be explained.
>Someday it could be
No. The amount of human knowledge will always be finite, because there will always be a finite amount of humans, and each human has only finite memory.

Man you're retarded. I can't do anything besides repeat myself, so I guess my work is done here.

>> No.2446192

>>2446172
This is wrong. You read some pop-sci and misunderstood it.

>> No.2446195

>>2446172

He just the whole big bang theory

>> No.2446203

>>2446190

>implying that trying to understand the laws of physics requires infinite memory.

>> No.2446212

>>2446203
Depends on what you think about the ultimate nature of the universe. But as it stands, a lifetime isn't enough to learn even the sum of *current* human scientific knowledge.

>> No.2446215

We have learned all we can, and science is now in its most complete form. We can answer no more questions.

>> No.2446221

>>2446203
But why are those the laws of physics? Perhaps it was simply a law of physics that space expanded. You would immediately ask "why?". Perhaps the only available answer is "evidence".

You can understand a consistent set of the laws of physics with finite memory, but you can't explain why those are the laws of physics, and Newtonian motion isn't, except by resorting to "I don't know. It is because that's what the evidence says."

You're just not quite getting my point, and that makes me sad. I'm trying to think how to explain it better.

>> No.2446224

>>2446215
>mfw next-gen iPad
y so told?

>> No.2446225

>>2446215
(Also, another person taking the trip to troll. Believe my arguments based on the evidence, not because of any authority.)

>> No.2446231

So, on the original question....

Nobody knows how space expands, just that scientific evidence says that it does?

And according to "Scientist", we will never know because it is the end of the "Why" question sequence, and every question sequence must end with a "I dono it just is lol".

>> No.2446243

>>2446221

I understand what you're saying. You are saying that its like gravity. Its just a force that does, and its explanation is hard to articulate. Right?

Its almost like bizzaro gravity.

>> No.2446250

Its like gravity, it just does.

>> No.2446251

>>2446231
You're misconstruing my argument and point. One ought to make falsifiable models of the natural world. It's what science does. However, the entire and only basis of those models is the evidence. The only explanation of why a scientific model is correct is evidence.

Perhaps we can devise a model which explains why space expands, but the only explanation for that new model would be evidence.

>> No.2446254

>>2446231
>Nobody knows how space expands, just that scientific evidence says that it does?
Pretty much. Or more definitely, we don't know WHY. "How" space expands is just watching it and saying "that's what it's doing".

>> No.2446256

>>2446243
Yes. Exactly.

>> No.2446257

I prefer to think of it in terms of set theory. Any interval of the real numbers has the same cardinality as every other interval which also has the same cardinality as all of R.

All of the particle map to a larger interval (set in N-space) but maintain cardinality.

>> No.2446283

If massive objects suck mass in, the complete absence of mass pushes mass away.

>> No.2446294

>>2446283
That is not intuitive, as you seem to suggest. (The conclusion does not follow from the argument). But your conclusion does seem to happen to have truth to it, anyway.