A theory of why space is expanding faster.

[Talavar]

 Imagine space is on a 4-5 dimensional torus.

What you are seeing is an expansion on one side, and a contraction on the other.
If, in-fact space was on such a multidimensional plane, Gravity could hypothetically cause an acceleration towards the contraction on the other side.. Or, In an assumption that we have only left the northern horn recently (13-14 billion years), and the trip around the torus may take 100's of billions of years, things would appear to accelerate as they expand outwards.  Thoughts??

Edited October 1, 2016 by Talavar

[Green Baron]

Nice. But wouldn't the expansion start on the horn with maximum speed and slow down, reaching zero on the outer equator, and then contraction kicks in with increasing spead ?

But the observation is an increasing expansion speed ... how would that fit ?

Also, do we need yaf (yet another force) to explain the speed control of expansion/contraction ?

Edited October 1, 2016 by Green Baron

[GregA]

3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Nice. But wouldn't the expansion start on the horn with maximum speed and slow down, reaching zero on the outer equator, and then contraction kicks in with increasing spead ?

But the observation is an increasing expansion speed ... how would that fit ?

Also, do we need yaf (yet another force) to explain the speed control of expansion/contraction ?

Is the accelerating expansion really happening, or are those high z galaxies just running into floating point errors at the edge of the simulation?

[YNM]

13 hours ago, Talavar said:

 Imagine space is on a 4-5 dimensional torus.

What you are seeing is an expansion on one side, and a contraction on the other.
If, in-fact space was on such a multidimensional plane, Gravity could hypothetically cause an acceleration towards the contraction on the other side.. Or, In an assumption that we have only left the northern horn recently (13-14 billion years), and the trip around the torus may take 100's of billions of years, things would appear to accelerate as they expand outwards.  Thoughts??

I guess I've always been fixed on the "isotropic and homogeneous" principles, but nevertheless this is just some extra simple model for it. Your model would make this thing breaks, not to mention the totally unexpected acceleration. Unless that CMB anisotropy is really because of space and not because of our own movement (I always thought so). Then I can't wrap my mind over the gravitation at the central point. Also, how about the fact that the movement we see accumulatively happens from the past to present day in all direction ?

Then, the distance in 3D on higher-order non-homogeneous, non-isotropic curvature would be different than on 2D torus surface. So all goes back to the metrics (and matrices) where it all can truly be formulated (yeah, many modern things aren't to be truly contemplated). But as one book on cosmology says : "... a bagel (or other toroidal object) is negatively curved on part of its surface and positively curved on other parts. You can test this, if you like, by drawing triangles on a bagel."

Edited October 1, 2016 by YNM

[Talavar]

8 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Nice. But wouldn't the expansion start on the horn with maximum speed and slow down, reaching zero on the outer equator, and then contraction kicks in with increasing spead ?

But the observation is an increasing expansion speed ... how would that fit ?

Also, do we need yaf (yet another force) to explain the speed control of expansion/contraction ?

No, it would actually speed up, since there is more linear distance to cover the farther it moves outwards. Only when you get close to the center point on the outside of the torus would you see it slow down, as it would then start a reversal, and you'd see the process happen in reverse (sort of).. This could be the only way that the expansion could speed up, then slow down again.. At-least as far as I can see, anyway. The mechanism/force controlling the expansion/contraction would have to work in some form of greater dimensional toroidal magnetic force.. sort of how our magnetosphere works. Perhaps on a greater dimension, Gravity has a north and south. I know it sounds strange, but when compared to some stuff in quantum mechanics and string theory, it really doesn't seem too bizarre I suppose.

 

27 minutes ago, YNM said:

I guess I've always been fixed on the "isotropic and homogeneous" principles, but nevertheless this is just some extra simple model for it. Your model would make this thing breaks, not to mention the totally unexpected acceleration. Unless that CMB anisotropy is really because of space and not because of our own movement (I always thought so). Then I can't wrap my mind over the gravitation at the central point. Also, how about the fact that the movement we see accumulatively happens from the past to present day in all direction ?

Then, the distance in 3D on higher-order non-homogeneous, non-isotropic curvature would be different than on 2D torus surface. So all goes back to the metrics (and matrices) where it all can truly be formulated (yeah, many modern things aren't to be truly contemplated). But as one book on cosmology says : "... a bagel (or other toroidal object) is negatively curved on part of its surface and positively curved on other parts. You can test this, if you like, by drawing triangles on a bagel."

 The movement that we see would function correctly on the 3d surface, stretched over the 4d brane that is configured into a 4d toroidal loop. (I really have no other way to explain this honestly), I can sort of visualize it, but when dealing with 4D objects.... well I'm sure you already understand the complexity of conveying what is meant when thinking in a 4th dimensional setting. It's really frustrating trying to put it into words when there really are none. lol..
  as for the rest, I have always believed we can see the expansion of space, simply by the distance between objects being accelerated. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise (at-least to me), but that is simply my perception of how things are working. As we all know, nothing is ever learned unless we go against the grain constantly with new ways to view things. I like to think about things like this while I'm falling asleep at night. Maybe someday, one of us on a forum like this will come up with something not yet explained and simplifyit :).

Edited October 1, 2016 by Talavar

[YNM]

6 minutes ago, Talavar said:

The movement that we see would function correctly on the 3d surface, stretched over the 4d brane that is configured into a 4d toroidal loop. (I really have no other way to explain this honestly), I can sort of visualize it, but when dealing with 4D objects.... well I'm sure you already understand the complexity of conveying what is meant when thinking in a 4th dimensional setting. It's really frustrating trying to put it into words when there really are none. lol..

Brian Schmidt says so far he haven't found any sane people able to visualize the higher dimensions. That's why the math has to work, otherwise it's vapor.

[Talavar]

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

Brian Schmidt says so far he haven't found any sane people able to visualize the higher dimensions. That's why the math has to work, otherwise it's vapor.

   Well, I cant really visualize 4 dimensions.. only a 3 dimensional rendition of it, even still, it's hard to explain. lol.. btw, I edited my last comment and added to it.

[Green Baron]

Well explained and nice idea. Einstein would probably support in with relief, as the (current) universe would be finite :-)

Am curious about the other physicists' thoughts ...

 

[Talavar]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

 I can't wrap my mind over the gravitation at the central point.

 Imagine the northern horn as a white hole, and the southern horn as a black hole. I guess that would help with some sort of mathematical origins to it, even though we can't really prove they (white-holes) exist, and are currently a sort of glorified possibility at best.  It's all, of-course, speculation. But it's fun to toss things around. .. If I'm correct, hawking proposed that inside a blackhole, elements are broken down to their fundamentals. This could explain the beginning of the expansion being made purely of those fundamental particles.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Talavar

[Talavar]

I'm literally just bouncing Ideas around now.. lol

[YNM]

2 hours ago, Talavar said:

No, it would actually speed up, since there is more linear distance to cover the farther it moves outwards. Only when you get close to the center point on the outside of the torus would you see it slow down, as it would then start a reversal, and you'd see the process happen in reverse (sort of).. This could be the only way that the expansion could speed up, then slow down again.. At-least as far as I can see, anyway. The mechanism/force controlling the expansion/contraction would have to work in some form of greater dimensional toroidal magnetic force.. sort of how our magnetosphere works. Perhaps on a greater dimension, Gravity has a north and south. I know it sounds strange, but when compared to some stuff in quantum mechanics and string theory, it really doesn't seem too bizarre I suppose.

 

 The movement that we see would function correctly on the 3d surface, stretched over the 4d brane that is configured into a 4d toroidal loop. (I really have no other way to explain this honestly), I can sort of visualize it, but when dealing with 4D objects.... well I'm sure you already understand the complexity of conveying what is meant when thinking in a 4th dimensional setting. It's really frustrating trying to put it into words when there really are none. lol..
  as for the rest, I have always believed we can see the expansion of space, simply by the distance between objects being accelerated. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise (at-least to me), but that is simply my perception of how things are working. As we all know, nothing is ever learned unless we go against the grain constantly with new ways to view things. I like to think about things like this while I'm falling asleep at night. Maybe someday, one of us on a forum like this will come up with something not yet explained and simplifyit :).

You might want to revisit why red- (or blue- ) shift happens.

1. The object is actually moving away, and due to the different reference frame and light's constant speed, the wavelength has to change.

2. The space itself moves. This is what we're concerned with when talking high-z (large redshift) objects.

Here's a visualization of how light goes inside an expanding universe :

As you can see, matter easily just moves off, while the wavelength of light changes. But the problem doesn't stop there.

In the second image is an oversimplification of what's happening (with expansion hold at constant rate and the light just moves off the paper):

At t0, the light starts to travel. The instant distance was dp(t0), starting instant distance (proper distance).

At t = somewhere in between, the light looks like it's halfway across - but according to itself, it clearly isn't.

At t' (end), the light comes to the end of it's journey as a tiny speck. We acclaim that it has redshifted, say, "z" much, which convers to distance d. But is that the instant (proper) distance at that time ? It clearly isn't.

If the distances don't match, what convinces you that the velocity, and hence acceleration, will ?

41 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 Imagine the northern horn as a white hole, and the southern horn as a black hole. I guess that would help with some sort of mathematical origins to it, even though we can't really prove they (white-holes) exist, and are currently a sort of glorified possibility at best.  It's all, of-course, speculation. But it's fun to toss things around. .. If I'm correct, hawking proposed that inside a blackhole, elements are broken down to their fundamentals. This could explain the beginning of the expansion being made purely of those fundamental particles.

That'd still be scary. Unless the velocity of the space is really phenomenal.

Additionally, your proposed theory might have some problems with inflation, or it can explain it straight away. (that's why this part of science need loads of mathematical proof, then prediction findings.)

Edited October 1, 2016 by YNM

[Talavar]

7 minutes ago, YNM said:

You might want to revisit why red- (or blue- ) shift happens.

1. The object is actually moving away, and due to the different reference frame and light's constant speed, the wavelength has to change.

2. The space itself moves. This is what we're concerned with when talking high-z (large redshift) objects.

Here's a visualization of how light goes inside an expanding universe :

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ky04ekixhkf7wzz/one.png?dl=0

As you can see, matter easily just moves off, while the wavelength of light changes. But the problem doesn't stop there.

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/wffwpepn7yxequk/two.png?dl=0

In the second image is an oversimplification of what's happening (with expansion hold at constant rate and the light just moves off the paper):

At t0, the light starts to travel. The instant distance was dp(t0), starting instant distance (proper distance).

At t = somewhere in between, the light looks like it's halfway across - but according to itself, it clearly isn't.

At t' (end), the light comes to the end of it's journey as a tiny speck. We acclaim that it has redshifted, say, "z" much, which convers to distance d. But is that the instant (proper) distance at that time ? It clearly isn't.

If the distances don't match, what convinces you that the velocity, and hence acceleration, will ?

That'd still be scary. Unless the velocity of the space is really phenomenal.

Additionally, your proposed theory might have some problems with inflation, or it can explain it straight away. (that's why this part of science need loads of mathematical proof, then prediction findings.)

 You have to keep in mind, that even though space itself is moving in this hypothetical, and things move along with it, it doesn't mean that things aren't moving relative to space as well, hence you could still have the red-shift in the light spectrum. I guess I should have thought to add that in.  SInce all matter/energy would be ejected along with space I would assume that the energy itself would move faster than the actual space itself. I dunno, there's a lot of different variables and a lot of "what if's". Like I said.. all speculation.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Talavar

[YNM]

2 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 You have to keep in mind, that even though space itself is moving, and things move along with it, it doesn't mean that things aren't moving relative to space as well, hence you could still have the red-shift in the light spectrum. I guess I should have thought to add that in.  SInce all matter/energy would be ejected along with space I would assume that the energy itself would move faster than the actual space itself. I dunno, there's a lot of different variables and a lot of "what if's". Like I said.. all speculation.

Larger volume, equal energy -> energy density goes down. Worser for radiation, their inherent energy also goes down with time, as represented in the wavelegths becomes longer on it's own. So it's not that a far away object is moving away from us, it's their local space, which in turn makes it like they're the ones that moves off. Then, the history of these light differs than the history of the source, and the history of the receiver.

Hmm, 2.30 AM !

Edited October 1, 2016 by YNM

[Talavar]

18 minutes ago, YNM said:

1. The object is actually moving away, and due to the different reference frame and light's constant speed, the wavelength has to change.

2. The space itself moves. This is what we're concerned with when talking high-z (large redshift) objects.

Both of these would be happening simultaneously at different rates , where actual movement/shift would depend on a stars centrifugal point in it's galaxy (coming towards our viewpoint, or moving away)

18 minutes ago, YNM said:

Larger volume, equal energy -> energy density goes down. Worser for radiation, their inherent energy also goes down with time, as represented in the wavelegths becomes longer on it's own. So it's not that a far away object is moving away from us, it's their local space, which in turn makes it like they're the ones that moves off.

Hmm, 2.30 AM !

   haha! Middle of the day here. Take a long nap, we can talk more on it later. Would that not fit in with the stretching of space in this case? with space expanding, and the energy density dropping because of it, the redshift would then be a given in that situation, no? I'll leave this here for you for tomorrow.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Talavar

[K^2]

If you have to involve a moving picture in your explanation, you might be picturing it completely wrong.. Space-time is static. It just looks like it's expanding to us because we're in it, and it happens to be smaller on the side we call "the past".

On the more concrete side of it, while it's entirely possible to construct geometry that has time acting like minor circumference of a torus, not just any geometry is valid. Space-time geometry has to be a solution to Einstein Field Equations, and we know something about matter content in the visible universe at least. Since our observation is that the universe is not only expanding, but undergoes accelerated expansion, this would imply that the "sides" of the torus have been "blown out", and the size of the universe tends to infinity on the "upper" half of the torus. In which case, the "lower" half might as well not exist.

More importantly, as I've indicated at the top, there is no actual movement. "Upper" and "lower" halves of the torus are absolutely identical. There is no reason why universe would be expanding in one half and collapsing in another. In fact, our choice of time direction is entirely driven by the expansion itself. Which means that inhabitants of both the upper and lower halves would describe their universe as expanding. This would be true even if the size was finite, but it would also have very interesting implications for how the universe ends.

On the net, though, it absolutely doesn't matter. Since expansion is accelerated, we can concern ourselves with just the portion of universe we happen to be in and treat it as if it's the only thing that exists. For all practical purposes, it is.