Dimensional Expansion

[Watson]

Can't we leave the basic understanding of the Universe as is, and just explain gravity? That is what needs unifying, isn't it?

[Faradave]

just explain gravity

Einstein provided the great revelation that gravity is acceleration.
From there, all that remains is a clarification of what acceleration is - a diminishing of the continuum's separational capacity. From this can be surmised a defect in the continuum - a hole - acting as a field element, distributed over the field. The behavior which accomplishes this must be instantaneous to result in a continuous field. That is most simply modeled by chronaxial spin (about a temporal axis), which happens to also make the field element's position absolutely indeterminate. It also causes the strength of the defect to fall off characteristically with radius².

[Watson]

From there, all that remains is a clarification of what acceleration is - a diminishing of the continuum's separational capacity.

OK.
But it is not a separational capacity? It might be a dimensional expansion. This idea is not disallowed, since there is no "outside of the Universe" for a frame of reference. What the whole of the Universe is doing is an open question, far beyond our ability achieve answers. Is the Universe spinning? Is it expanding? If so, into what? There is no way to know, so it is beyond science to even wonder.

Einstein provided the great revelation that gravity is acceleration.

So what would that look like?

To my mind, if matter is expanding at the fundamental level, it would cohesively dimensional expand at the macro level of us. But again, there would be no identifiable frame of reference. There would only be identifiers such as gravity.

If all matter expands into the three dimensional unframed Universe, the gravity acceleration would be a natural aspect. The question is, given this type of dimensional expansion, does our known gravity conform to predictions? That is a question science should be able to wonder about.

[someguy1]

I would say that these days, any full account of the world must explain life and mind. After all, half the people on Internet message forums are convinced that the world is a computer and that mind is "what it feels like" to execute an algorithm. I joke not, serious people believe this.

[Faradave]

separational capacity?

Regardless of expansion, space isn't space, unless it offers the potential for separation. It is naïve to presume that such potential must be uniform. I model 100% separational capacity as the potential for two objects to maintain separation. We observe that it is not normally the case. Absent balancing forces, gravitation will cause any two objects to accelerate toward each other. While this is conventionally described as a spatial "curvature", it is as well described as loss of separational capacity, not requiring any actual geometric curve.

there is no "outside of the Universe"

A lot depends on your definition of "universe". If you take it as all space (a particular simultaneity) at a given time, then time allows plenty of room for expansion. Every moment provides for a new space, which can be expanded compared to the last one. The timelines of remote objects would tend to diverge in such a model.

Is the Universe spinning?

Spin about a 3rd or 4th dimensional axis can be ruled out because it would produce non-uniform expansion, in contrast to observations. However, dark energy can be modeled as spin about a 5th dimensional axis. Earth's 1D (circular) equator bulges a bit due to uniform expansion forces from its spin around a 3rd dimensional axis. (A polar axis is perpendicular to the 2D plane of the equatorial disk.) Similarly, if you go up two dimensions, all space (3D) is contained in such an equator which experiences uniform expansion (in all 3D) as it spins about a now 5th D axis. Time would be radial in that equator's disk. EasyPeezy!

[Watson]

Regardless of expansion, space isn't space, unless it offers the potential for separation. It is naïve to presume that such potential must be uniform. I model 100% separational capacity as the potential for two objects to maintain separation. We observe that it is not normally the case. Absent balancing forces, gravitation will cause any two objects to accelerate toward each other.

I misunderstood your thinking there. So my suggestion is, gravity is not the cause of seperational capacity. As two objects expand in the 3D Universe they lose seperational capacity and appear to accelerate towards each other.

A lot depends on your definition of "universe". If you take it as all space (a particular simultaneity) at a given time, then time allows plenty of room for expansion. Every moment provides for a new space, which can be expanded compared to the last one. The timelines of remote objects would tend to diverge in such a model.

I am thinking of the capital U, Universe. But I'm not thinking of Hubble expansion. I'm thinking more of an Alice in Wonderland type expansion. If Alice takes a pill and expands by ? times, she knows it and the people at her feet know it. And if magic dust hits Wonderland, and all of Wonderland now expands by the same factor as Alice, then Alice and others at her feet would again know it.
But what would they know? Did Wonderland expand to match Alice, or did Alice shrink back down? Without a frame of reference there is no way to know. That is my point, there is no way to know, either in Wonderland or in the Universe.

Similarly, if you go up two dimensions, all space (3D) is contained in such an equator which experiences uniform expansion (in all 3D) as it spins about a now 5th D axis.

This,"all space (3D) is contained in such an equator which experiences uniform expansion (in all 3D)" sounds like exactly what I'm talking about. Can you elaborate on this expansion?

[Faradave]

Some time ago, you may recall, I did an illustrated thread on this model, see3RC.

Basically, if you fold spatial dimensions X and Y scissors-like, you get a 2-line and if you do it again with Z you get a 3-line of compacted dimensions. This needn't actually happen, it's just a way for us to gain a higher dimensional perspective.

Bend the 3-line into a circle and you have a 3-ring in a 4-plane. The 4th dimension is radial time, which may be seen as a field emanating from the Big Bang event at its center. If the 3-ring rotates around that center there will be uniform outward forces coinciding with the 3-ring expanding with increasing radius (i.e. cosmological age). It's a model of dark energy, so emphasis is on "model".

[Watson]

I'm just reviewing the thread, my old rotational Universe. I don't recall seeing it back then. At the time I took Lincoln's comment to heart, that a rotation would give a special location, or center on the Universe that was not allowed. So this is interesting.

[Faradave]

Whether many physicists realize it or not, they confuse people with such wrote statements. What they intend to say is that there is no one location in space now at which the Big Bang (BB) took place. They should be careful not to deny the BB event itself, which clearly is nowhere now. In 4D, which includes time, past events cannot be denied a location.

This is equivalent to admitting that a circle has a center which is nowhere on the circle itself.

Allow that the 3-ring represents the entire cosmos (spatially) at a given instant, and that past 3-rings occur concentrically inward, while future 3-rings occur concentrically outward. Then the BB at the center corresponds to a 3-ring of zero radius (at cosmic time zero), a single event. Thus, the BB is often said to have occurred everywhere, since that central event corresponds to all space at that initial moment.

[Watson]

Can we go back to this point? I didn't mean to get side tracked to rotation.

Regardless of expansion, space isn't space, unless it offers the potential for separation. It is naïve to presume that such potential must be uniform. I model 100% separational capacity as the potential for two objects to maintain separation. We observe that it is not normally the case. Absent balancing forces, gravitation will cause any two objects to accelerate toward each other.

I misunderstood your thinking there. So my suggestion is, gravity is not the cause of seperational capacity. As two objects expand in the 3D Universe they lose seperational capacity and appear to accelerate towards each other.

A lot depends on your definition of "universe". If you take it as all space (a particular simultaneity) at a given time, then time allows plenty of room for expansion. Every moment provides for a new space, which can be expanded compared to the last one. The timelines of remote objects would tend to diverge in such a model.

I am thinking of the capital U, Universe. But I'm not thinking of Hubble expansion. I'm thinking more of an Alice in Wonderland type expansion. If Alice takes a pill and expands by ? times, she knows it and the people at her feet know it. And if magic dust hits Wonderland, and all of Wonderland now expands by the same factor as Alice, then Alice and others at her feet would again know it.
But what would they know? Did Wonderland expand to match Alice, or did Alice shrink back down? Without a frame of reference there is no way to know. That is my point, there is no way to know, either in Wonderland or in the Universe.

[bangstrom]

But it is not a separational capacity? It might be a dimensional expansion. This idea is not disallowed, since there is no "outside of the Universe" for a frame of reference. What the whole of the Universe is doing is an open question, far beyond our ability achieve answers. Is the Universe spinning? Is it expanding? If so, into what? There is no way to know, so it is beyond science to even wonder.

I agree we have no god’s eye view of the universe that would provide an identifiable frame of reference so the best we can do for our models is to identify some arbitrary measure as an agent of change and go from there. The conventional view is that matter is unchanging while space expands but this may no more than an intuitive view that has been with us since the time of ancient Greece where matter was considered to be unchanging.

To my mind, if matter is expanding at the fundamental level, it would cohesively dimensional expand at the macro level of us. But again, there would be no identifiable frame of reference. There would only be identifiers such as gravity.

If all matter expands into the three dimensional unframed Universe, the gravity acceleration would be a natural aspect. The question is, given this type of dimensional expansion, does our known gravity conform to predictions? That is a question science should be able to wonder about.

The problem is that, unlike Wonderland, when one cosmological change takes place EVERYTHING changes proportionally so we have no local observation of change. The best place to look for evidence of change is in the distant galaxies. This is essentially looking back in time.

If matter expands while space (distance) remains the same, this would give us the observation of a contracting universe that is growing more crowded as it ages. On the other hand, if space expands while matter remains the same or if space remains the same while matter contracts, either possibility would appear to us as a dimensional expansion which is what we see.

A number of GUT’s can and have been derived simply by picking different parameters and identifying them as changing with time. Newton’s G is a popular choice as an element of change but there are other possibilities that work as well.

[bangstrom]

They should be careful not to deny the BB event itself, which clearly is nowhere now. In 4D, which includes time, past events cannot be denied a location.

This is equivalent to admitting that a circle has a center which is nowhere on the circle itself.

The central BB event is everywhere now. A 4-D hypersphere can be expanded into a torus in 3-D space for easier visualization and a torus can be rotated so that any point at the "center" can be rotated to any point within the volume of the torus.

[Watson]

The problem is that, unlike Wonderland, when one cosmological change takes place EVERYTHING changes proportionally so we have no local observation of change. The best place to look for evidence of change is in the distant galaxies. This is essentially looking back in time.

That is not a problem. It is exactly what I'm suggesting. Given this ongoing cosmological change there is no local or non-local observation of any change. Just gravity as a consequence of changes. Not as a force.
Yes the distant galaxies, looking back in time, will have interesting ramifications.

If matter expands while space (distance) remains the same, this would give us the observation of a contracting universe that is growing more crowded as it ages. On the other hand, if space expands while matter remains the same or if space remains the same while matter contracts, either possibility would appear to us as a dimensional expansion which is what we see.

Or, a combination of the above where by matter does expand and space also expands at a slightly faster rate. This again would give us a model of expansion that we now see.

(In the past I have thought of dimensional expansion as the expansion of the dimensions of matter. If I read you correctly, you are referring to dimensional expansion of space?)

[Faradave]

The central BB event is everywhere now.

By "now" I refer to any observer's simultaneity, i.e. all that observer's space at the present moment. All observers find the Big Bang (BB) to be a past event, about 13.7 billion years ago to us and not zero years ago to anyone.

A 4D consideration incorporates time and would include the BB event, but it would be highly localized, if not a single point.

[Watson]

If matter is expanding evenly throughout the ever expanding Universe, one of the ramifications would be on the distance to distant objects. As we look back on the earlier Universe, exposed to a lesser expansion, we are looking at a visually 'smaller' area in the distant Universe. So a distant object maybe smaller, and not so distant.

So the question is, do the red-shift measurements negate this possibility, or is there enough of a variable in the measurements to allow both as possible.

[hyksos]

I am thinking of the capital U, Universe. But I'm not thinking of Hubble expansion. I'm thinking more of an Alice in Wonderland type expansion. If Alice takes a pill and expands by ? times, she knows it and the people at her feet know it. And if magic dust hits Wonderland, and all of Wonderland now expands by the same factor as Alice, then Alice and others at her feet would again know it.
But what would they know? Did Wonderland expand to match Alice, or did Alice shrink back down? Without a frame of reference there is no way to know. That is my point, there is no way to know, either in Wonderland or in the Universe.

Global expansion of space is definitely not equivalent to local shrinking of objects. The reason is simple, really. Not all the key constants of physics are expressible in terms of length. There were some attempts by a PH.d in Europe to try to entertain these kinds of theories, The kind of idea were "expansion of space" is replaced by something else , like "The mass of everything in the universe is increasing". He found rather quickly that you cannot just replace one for the other, without also heavily modifying a bunch of other parameters and constants.

Shrinking of objects means the local laws of physics are changing. As far we know, changes in local laws of physics are not observed in distant galaxies.

If matter expands while space (distance) remains the same, this would give us the observation of a contracting universe that is growing more crowded as it ages. On the other hand, if space expands while matter remains the same or if space remains the same while matter contracts, either possibility would appear to us as a dimensional expansion which is what we see.

Matter shrinking and space expanding are very different scenarios, which would yield differences in experimental observations.

The reason is simple. Forces and other interactions will act against the expansion of space. Imagine two massive objects connected by a spring. If the space is not expanding at all, the spring will hold the masses at some distance, call it D, with regularity. Now consider the same system in a universe in which all space is expanding at a constant rate, r. The tension in the spring will act against the expansion, until a point at which a stability is reached. In that universe, the masses would be separated by a distance that is more like .

(1.000000000000174 * D )

[hyksos]

There is an error in the above post.

one of the above six

Five?

Zang.

After a few days, I have decided on a sixth criterion.

6. Does the person's writing mention supersymmetry anywhere? (...even if to disagree with it?)

Folks having a feeling that SUSY is useless, are not paying attention --> viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33975

[Watson]

The kind of idea were "expansion of space" is replaced by something else , like "The mass of everything in the universe is increasing". He found rather quickly that you cannot just replace one for the other, without also heavily modifying a bunch of other parameters and constants.

If ALL the matter in the Universe is expanding at a constant rate of expansion, then these constants remain constant as do all other parameters. What needs modifying?

[bangstrom]

By "now" I refer to any observer's simultaneity, i.e. all that observer's space at the present moment. All observers find the Big Bang (BB) to be a past event, about 13.7 billion years ago to us and not zero years ago to anyone.

A 4D consideration incorporates time and would include the BB event, but it would be highly localized, if not a single point.

We are the location in space where it all began. We may be 13.7 billion years from the BB in time but we are still inside the big bang which is where we have always been. Every bit of matter in the universe and the space that surrounds it is a remnant of the BB.

“So there's no one point in the universe that can be considered the location of the big bang.”
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-big-bang

[bangstrom]

Shrinking of objects means the local laws of physics are changing. As far we know, changes in local laws of physics are not observed in distant galaxies.

Matter shrinking and space expanding are very different scenarios, which would yield differences in experimental observations.

Local laws of physics should remain the same as long as all changes remain proportional. We have no external god’s eye view of the universe to tell us if the universe is expanding or if the entire material world is growing smaller and it really makes no difference since the two possibilities are physically equivalent.

Emissions from distant galaxies appear redshifted relative to local emissions which can mean that either space is expanding or matter is contracting on the atomic scale. If atoms were larger many eons ago and emitted light in wavelengths proportional to their size, then the light we observe now should appear redshifted relative to modern light even if the universe is not expanding.

Being able to examine the same events from more than a single point of view gives us “perspective” in that we can compare conclusions drawn from one point of view with conclusions drawn from the other. Einstein did this quite successfully when compared the physics of gravity with the physics of acceleration as a test for the correctness of his views about gravity.

The reason is simple. Forces and other interactions will act against the expansion of space. Imagine two massive objects connected by a spring. If the space is not expanding at all, the spring will hold the masses at some distance, call it D, with regularity. Now consider the same system in a universe in which all space is expanding at a constant rate, r. The tension in the spring will act against the expansion, until a point at which a stability is reached. In that universe, the masses would be separated by a distance that is more like .

(1.000000000000174 * D )

How do you know (1.000000000000174 * D ) is due to the expansion of space and not contraction of the spring?

[Watson]

Local laws of physics should remain the same as long as all changes remain proportional. We have no external god’s eye view of the universe to tell us if the universe is expanding or if the entire material world is growing smaller and it really makes no difference since the two possibilities are physically equivalent.

So if it is possible to consider the uniform expansion of the Universe (of matter and space), then it should be equally possible to consider the gravity we experience and observe is actually the acceleration of the expansion.

[bangstrom]

So if it is possible to consider the uniform expansion of the Universe (of matter and space), then it should be equally possible to consider the gravity we experience and observe is actually the acceleration of the expansion.

Could you elaborate on this? The expansion of space should make the universe appear to expand while the expansion of matter should make the universe appear to be contracting and there should be no change at the local level. Also, what would the effect of this double expansion have on the appearance of the galactic redshifts?

[Watson]

Yes exactly. I trick is to imagine matter expanding at a rate of say 9.8 m/s/s, and to image space expanding at a slightly faster rate. So for us there is no change observed at the local level, and only an expansion of space at the macro-verse level.

So what about the red-shift? As red-shift is a function of light (or other EMR) and distance, the red-shift values should not be affected. But given the look-back time the visually observed objects would be smaller. To counter this apparent discrepancy with observation, I would say the objects are just optically closer.

Considering look back time of these observed distant objects, matter would be

[bangstrom]

Yes exactly. I trick is to imagine matter expanding at a rate of say 9.8 m/s/s, and to image space expanding at a slightly faster rate. So for us there is no change observed at the local level, and only an expansion of space at the macro-verse level.

9.8 m/s/s is an incredible rate of expansion for both space and matter and redshift values should be affected. Redshifts are a look back in time and, in this scenario, if atoms in the past were smaller than they are today at the rate of 9.8 m/s/s, they must have emitted light that was enormously redshifted relative to present day light. Even the sun would appear redshifted and optically more distant at a rate like that. I must be missing something here.

[Watson]

Yes it is an incredible rate as seen from out side frame of reference. But if we are looking at the expansion of the matter, with a slightly greater expansion of space, I think we have agreed the expansion of matter would be undetected. So the rate of expansion of matter is irrelevant. Matter expands in an undetectable fashion. Space expands at a slightly faster rate, as detected by red-shift.

I assumed a rate of matter expansion of 9.8 m/s/s because that is the rate of gravity.

If we think of the dimensional expansion of matter at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s, this would be equivalent to gravity. Or instead of gravity as a mysterious force, it is a natural consequence of this expansion.

[bangstrom]

I assumed a rate of matter expansion of 9.8 m/s/s because that is the rate of gravity.

This would make gravity a surface effect rather than a force acting at a distance. How could an expanding sun keep the planets in orbit?

[Watson]

Yes exactly. And there would still be the electromagnetic effects.

And a straight line in an expanding Universe of space and matter may well be more circular. Matter in motion, in an expanding space could be thought of as a motion up hill, so to speak.
(up hill because the spacial expansion is slightly greater than material expansion)

This small local effect of spacial expansion, coupled with the electromagnetism could be balancing objects of many kinds in orbits about larger objects.

The question is, "Does this interpretation of an expanding Universe of space and matter behave in a manner consistent with our current interpretation of gravity?" I think it does, and with less mystery.

[TheVat]

This theory seems like it needs a shave with Ockham's razor.

[Watson]

Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is

Gravity as a mysterious force of attraction has as many, if not more assumption to be made, so according to Ockham, we should perhaps ignore the force all together.

The biggest draw back is of course the mechanics behind this force. How does it work? How does it attract? We don't know. We know we don't know Gravity attracts, some how. And we just accept it as an open question.
Here we have a mechanical process, of dimensional expansion that clearly offers a non-mysterious way for gravity to work.
And consider this. Any matter congealed into a mass will dimensional expand outward, but also inwards. Mass becomes a planet or eventually a star. Two things happen. First, the inward pressure will increase with the size of the mass. And second, the mass will expand in all direction, so expanded masses will naturally develop into a rounded shape of stars and planets observed.
The force of gravity gets the credit, but in truth it is to weak to round out the Universe as it is observed to be, and probably couldn't really offer the crushing internal pressures needed for nuclear processes in stars.

[Watson]

Also, the Equivalence Principle does recognize gravity to be equivalent to an acceleration, under the right conditions. So other than our learned and common sense expectation about gravity, there is no real reason to NOT recognize this acceleration due to dimensional expansion as the true nature of gravity.