Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Universe expands because new matter is being created.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:29 ]</font>

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:21 ]</font>

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    Well, if you add more matter everywhere, then the universe may certainly get more dense...but that doesn't necessarily make it expand. In fact, a denser universe will tend to contract under its own self-gravitation.

    You might picture it like this: nearly all the universe is hard vacuum. There's very little matter, and most of it is clumped together. If you add an atom or so of hydrogen to a parcel of hard vacuum, it doesn't exert any expansive force on the vacuum--at least, I can't see that it does. The atoms just sort of hang there in space, looking forlorn. Well, maybe not. I could be wrong again.

    I seem to remember an hypothesis in which spacetime or some universal 'creation' field stretches very thinly in the voids between clusters of galaxies, and this 'stretching' somehow allowed protons, neutrons, and electrons to pop into being.

    I hope someone remembers how Hoyle and Bondi proposed to create matter in their steady-state universe.

    Welcome to the Bad Astronomy Forum!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:21 ]</font>

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    On 2003-01-17 22:46, asciirock wrote:
    >Well, if you add more matter everywhere, then the universe may certainly get more dense

    That is illogical. More dense in relation to what?
    More dense in relation to what it was before the new matter appeared.

    I mean... Say you had nine atoms in a given cubic meter of space... A new atom appears... Now you have ten atoms per cubic meter... That is a greater density.


    >...but that doesn't necessarily make it expand.

    ?
    Why would it? It isn't as if there isn't any room. Space is largely empty.

    Perhaps you are imagining that matter *and space* are being created continuously. That's reasonable. Another hypothesis is that new matter is more likely to be created near existing matter, and less likely to be created in the middle of nowhere: this would tend to preserve the observed distribution of matter.

    There's nothing wrong with this hypothesis... But it isn't necessary... It doesn't explain anything *better* than current standard ideas. It doesn't "compete."

    Silas

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:22 ]</font>

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    Actually, asciirock isn't too far from one interpretation of brane-world sst. The mass is lost into the bulk, but there is also mass that comes back from the bulk (through quantum tunnelling). However, it's a bit backwards because the dark matter is explained by mass leaving the universe while the dark energy is explained by mass entering.

    Unfortunately there is some conflicting data about the CMB and this theory, but it may yet prove useful.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    I should also comment that matter creation does not explain the universe's expansion but rather its isomorphy in a static universe (which has been disproven by the CMB) or a universe collapsing since mass has gravity. It cannot explain an expansion, unfortunately.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:22 ]</font>

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:22 ]</font>

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,853
    Hey. Adding mass (without adding radiation) to the universe causes it to expand, surprisingly. Read Tolman's "relativity, thermodynamics and cosmology" book. It shows that an Einstein static universe size is dependent on the total amount of mass and radiation in the universe. Changing either parameter causes the radius of this universe to change (no longer being static). Increasing the mass increases the radius or causes it to expand. Increasing the radiation pressure causes the radius to decrease or collapse. There are ways to convert radiation to mass, (such as electron-positron pair production) but I know of no way increase the mass of the universe from nothing.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:23 ]</font>

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    Check out Ned Wright's Cosmology pages, asciirox...


    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

    Also, Dark Matter tutorial

    http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm1.html

    for background.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    556
    General relativity predicts that light will follow curved spacetime geodesics in the presence of matter ...
    following, the letter Einstein sent to his mum regarding sun eclipse eperiment to confirm his theory :

    http://elbereth.obspm.fr/~charnoz/Gra711.jpg

    BUT according to ZPF theory, universe could be without mass ...

    http://www.calphysics.org/questions.html

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:23 ]</font>

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:23 ]</font>

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    On 2003-01-18 03:52, asciirock wrote:
    ...not according to me. That just validates me claiming this hypothesis as my own.
    I know you have a lot of reading to do, asciirock. But here are a couple more: The Many Worlds Hypothesis page has a simple explanation of a theory proposed in 1957. From the second paragraph: "whenever numerous viable possibilities exist, the world splits into many worlds, one world for each different possibility..." It also has a lot of links if you have the time. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    This Steady State Hypothesis page has a short introduction to that theory, also proposed in the 1950s. Here's a sentence from the first paragraph: "These theorists feel that any expansion and decrese of density in Universe is compensated by the construction or addition of other matter."

    HTH

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:24 ]</font>

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:25 ]</font>

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:25 ]</font>

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:25 ]</font>

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: asciirock on 2003-01-26 10:24 ]</font>

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    No. Dark matter is intrinsic to structure. It is not like redshift.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18
    JS Princeton and everybody else,

    Thanks for the input! The links were great too. I'm not going to post on the subject now because...

    ...up until the past few posts I felt like thinks were stacking up in its favour. Unfortunately, if the mysterious dark matter doesn't get denser with distance from earth than the facts just don't support me atm.

    While I can explain rigorous astronomical observations away *to myself*, I should hardly expect anyone to agree with me. I've devoted too much mental energy now though, and I'm keeping my theory as an act of faith!

    This being the case, I'm admitting it and I won't bring it up any more. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    Thanks!

Similar Threads

  1. The Universe not expands
    By lbiar in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 2010-May-23, 11:37 PM
  2. Matter can not be created or destroyed?
    By snabald in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-21, 04:26 PM
  3. Does Universe expands or collapses ?
    By czeslaw in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2007-Sep-25, 02:12 PM
  4. New Form of Matter Created
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2006-Jul-21, 04:28 PM
  5. All Matter Created on the Universe's Frontier?
    By PhantomWolf in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2006-Jul-14, 04:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •