Space-time, Big Bang and Black Holes.

Mark Quayle · Jan 25, 2023

I have given descriptions of what seems reasonable to me, similar to the below, but has been consistently rejected by better and more educated minds than mine, but I still don't understand why. I'm hoping that my earlier renditions/applications just weren't clear enough. So I thought I would try again.

I had this discussion just last night, over the phone with my son. Then today it shows up for discussion with another poster, @jameslouise here:

Is Calvinism a heresy? (post #162 —not that that discussion is relevant)

I copy and edit here:

For whatever use you may make of it, the notion of static speed of light vs variable speed of light is kind of double-talk —at least, to my mind and what I understand about physics and cosmology. The question, if one is to believe in the Big Bang and Black Holes etc, is one of perspective. To our current position, what happened 7 billion years ago may seem to have been happening at a different rate from what is happening now. But to one (supposing there was one) back then, what was happening then was happening at the same rate as what is happening now seems to us now. Now, let's suppose that God's point of view was/is from before the Big Bang, or better, from outside the whole business. We can only conjecture that he sees changing rates because we attribute 'reality' to 'change'. But maybe his point of view is merely of fact, not change —of 'being', not 'becoming'.

Maybe describing this paralleling thought will help: If what we call the event horizon around a black hole (let's represent the concept of "black hole" as an ever-increasingly curved funnel (not a consistent rate cone), much like the sci-fi movies sometimes show them, or like they show the beginnings of a wormhole, but with the 'event horizon' at its rim). We can see the rim where the event horizon is the point-of-no-return border of light and matter —or so we think. Yet, can one being sucked toward that event horizon, know that he has neared it? Why would he not see what he thinks is the event horizon, "at a place farther into the funnel", as we would say from our current perspective? Are we not all from our current positions being attracted toward the nearest biggest (most influential) black hole (and for that matter, all black holes)? If reality (space-time) is shrinking toward that infinitesimal core, why do we assume stresses that would tear a spacecraft apart? From any one point of view, the spacecraft bends/stretches/compresses. But at each point along that bend/stretch/compression, the view is standard fact, and all else variance from it.

Admitting my ignorance, the only answers I can draw are that the science community is inconsistent, at least in their descriptions, and that God is not us, and that we don't know very much. I also grant the possibility that my problem is mostly due to the fact that I just don't understand what I read from the scientific community.

Anyhow, I would appreciate your input.

sandman · Jan 25, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
I also grant the possibility that my problem is mostly due to the fact that I just don't understand what I read from the scientific community

But you (like myself) do understand the Bible...

God said in the beginning ...and that is good enough for me...

10 thousand or 10 billion it makes no difference ..... it is not going to change a single thing in my life. And science as been proven to be so flawed in this category (which they will never admit to). They use their theories to prove more theories ...but in reality it's nothing more than speculation.
And the Big bang theory ..... allegorically, is as ridiculous as having an explosion in a print factory ......resulting in a fully bound dictionary.
I am not against science it has its place ...just not in proving the unprovable.

sjastro · Jan 25, 2023

First of all let’s get the philosophical/theological aspects out of the way.
I have mentioned on numerous occasions a common error made by both Christians and atheists is trying to use to science to justify the existence or non existence of God.
God is unfalsifiable in science, there is no observation or experiment which supports the existence or non existence of God.

Now for the science stuff;
There is no evidence for the speed of light having been different in the past and has been supported by observational evidence such as the fine structure constant α which is the strength of the electromagnetic force not being different in the past.

α = e²/2εₒhc
If the speed of light c varied in the past and α remained constant then the other constants on the equation, e the elementary charge, εₒ the electric constant and h Planck’s constant would have to change accordingly which would be a remarkable coincidence.

On the subject of (static) black holes there are two types of singularities, a physical singularity corresponding to the centre of the black hole and a coordinate singularity corresponding to the event horizon.
The distance of the event horizon from the physical singularity is defined by the Schwarzschild radius Rₛ.

Rₛ= 2MG/c²

Notice in the equation the size of Rₛ depends on the mass M of the black hole.
For supermassive black holes occupying the centre of galaxies the event horizon is so far the away the effect of tidal forces is negligible and a spacecraft and its occupants can pass across the horizon blissfully unaware of anything out of the ordinary.
For stellar mass type black holes the opposite occurs as Rₛ is small and tidal forces on the spacecraft would have destroyed it and its occupants before the event horizon is reached.

On the subject of these tidal forces one needs to differentiate between tidal forces in Newtonian gravity and General relativity.
For Newtonian gravity the tidal force on an object is the difference between the gravitational force acting on the near side and far side of the object as illustrated using the Earth and Sun as an example.

Unfortunately Newtonian gravity cannot explain how small objects such as spacecrafts and humans can be torn apart as the gravitational force differential is small.
This is explained by General relativity and the use of force gauges.

Consider scenario (b) corresponding to an object in freefall moving towards the centre of a black hole which is a point mass.

There are two forces acting on the object, the “downwards” component acting towards the point mass due to gravity and an inward force which increases in magnitude as the object moves closer to the point mass.
This inward force is the tidal force which can become large enough to destroy the object when sufficiently close to the black hole point mass.

Note this has nothing to do with space-time “shrinking”.
As one gets closer to the physical singularity space-time curvature increases and the effect of fictitious forces such as the tidal forces becomes more apparent.
This is analogous to a racecar making a steeply banked turn, on a curved surface; there is a fictitious centrifugal force for as long as the driver is accelerating around the turn.

Mark Quayle · Jan 25, 2023

sandman said:
But you (like myself) do understand the Bible...

God said in the beginning ...and that is good enough for me...

10 thousand or 10 billion it makes no difference ..... it is not going to change a single thing in my life. And science as been proven to be so flawed in this category (which they will never admit to). They use their theories to prove more theories ...but in reality it's nothing more than speculation.
And the Big bang theory ..... allegorically, is as ridiculous as having an explosion in a print factory ......resulting in a fully bound dictionary.
I am not against science it has its place ...just not in proving the unprovable.

Not to oppose your point, but I try to go with what they say in order to reason with them concerning what even their science points at. Not only that, but I find what they do see, whether they see it accurately or not, fascinating. I want to learn more. I will give them credit —for the most part, they also want to know more, and don't assume they are at the end of learning. Much they say is stated as though it is a fixed conclusion, "and if you don't understand it, it is your ignorance, not a problem with the science". But then when they find they must amend or discard anything, you don't hear any apology. The impression I get is, "Wow! Look what happened to me here!" instead of an admission of error.

But I see I often do the same thing. Everybody has a tendency to "change opinions in mid-paragraph without losing any vehemence".

For instance, the Big Bang: Even by their own principles, IF there was a big bang —as one of their own writers said poetically what is simply logical— something like: "The seeds of what we see now were sown in the Big Bang". Thus, instead of some homogenous infinitesimal speck, there had to have been differentiation, particularity, even within that speck, or whatever may have acted upon it. This I have insisted on, in talking with them, and for the most part have been ignored as though it isn't important. But it is. And those who appeal to quantum physics to deny it end up with vague parallels and no definite principles to demonstrate anything concerning the matter.

Mark Quayle · Jan 25, 2023

sjastro said:
First of all let’s get the philosophical/theological aspects out of the way.
I have mentioned on numerous occasions a common error made by both Christians and atheists is trying to use to science to justify the existence or non existence of God.
God is unfalsifiable in science, there is no observation or experiment which supports the existence or non existence of God.

I agree that is an error. It is not my intent, but to show that to stop at the BB, claiming, as I have heard, "We don't have to go there", simply doesn't make sense. Science is not equipped with the tools to demonstrate one way or the other.

Now I don't mind scientists taking a recess from any one direction of pursuit where the mind must cast about for information to think further on, and hope to find clues in the behavior of particles and fields and strings and whatever, but to characterize the BB as homogenous, and to claim QM explains how the particularization happened, and to come up with outlandish self-contradictory statements, such as "popping in and out of existence uncaused" or "Nothingness is necessarily unstable"— well, I expect you get my point. Now maybe no scientist or science writer ever said anything like that, maybe I heard it from somebody wanting to denounce 'science'; whatever, I want to understand more than what I'm hearing, and don't like what doesn't add up to me.

sjastro said:
Now for the science stuff;
There is no evidence for the speed of light having been different in the past and has been supported by observational evidence such as the fine structure constant α which is the strength of the electromagnetic force not being different in the past.

α = e²/2εₒhc
If the speed of light c varied in the past and α remained constant then the other constants on the equation, e the elementary charge, εₒ the electric constant and h Planck’s constant would have to change accordingly which would be a remarkable coincidence.

I feel like you are not getting my point, here. If, as I have heard, 'reality' itself is expanding, according to theory and the accompanying math —not just the distances between objects, but the supposed space-time itself— how could we possibly experience or otherwise detect the differences? The fine structure constant α, Planck's constant and everything else varying with the expansion, would appear the same at whatever point the calculation is made, it seems to me.

According to what I understand, the doppler effect on light deals with only what light we currently see at whatever speed of the object that sent that light vs our speed toward or away from it. And from what I understand, we have not had enough difference in time to accurately sample whether that object is speeding up or slowing down relative to us. I don't know how they know, but by all accounts, the current universe is expanding more rapidly than it did in the past.

Anyway, if space-time is expanding, and if the rate of expansion is changing, how are time and space constant? But more to my question, how would we know? To my thinking, and I don't know enough to say why not, Planck's constant and the fine structure constant α, though it looks the same to us, would fit "the size" of the past passage of space-time. Thus my lack of confidence in so many of the statements I hear.

sjastro said:
On the subject of (static) black holes there are two types of singularities, a physical singularity corresponding to the centre of the black hole and a coordinate singularity corresponding to the event horizon.
The distance of the event horizon from the physical singularity is defined by the Schwarzschild radius Rₛ.

Rₛ= 2MG/c²

Notice in the equation the size of Rₛ depends on the mass M of the black hole.
For supermassive black holes occupying the centre of galaxies the event horizon is so far the away the effect of tidal forces is negligible and a spacecraft and its occupants can pass across the horizon blissfully unaware of anything out of the ordinary.
For stellar mass type black holes the opposite occurs as Rₛ is small and tidal forces on the spacecraft would have destroyed it and its occupants before the event horizon is reached.

Up until now, I would have said that according to what I have heard, it only makes sense that that event horizon would, regardless from how near the point of view, still appear just as far away and the mass measure the same, yet from any one position a person is in, another position would see a different event horizon and likewise, or, 'therefore' by the equation, a different mass.

But from the way you speak, then, there is such a thing as absolute distance, and it is not measurable from only here, but (theoretically) from any place in the universe, and would still be the same from any point of view —not only to appear the same from the different point of view. Thus, there is no such thing as bent, stretched or compressed "reality". It that is true, it would explain a lot, except it would not help me at all understand the statements I get from people claiming to understand Space-time distortion and Quantum theory.

sjastro said:
Consider scenario (b) corresponding to an object in freefall moving towards the centre of a black hole which is a point mass.

There are two forces acting on the object, the “downwards” component acting towards the point mass due to gravity and an inward force which increases in magnitude as the object moves closer to the point mass.
This inward force is the tidal force which can become large enough to destroy the object when sufficiently close to the black hole point mass.

Note this has nothing to do with space-time “shrinking”.
As one gets closer to the physical singularity space-time curvature increases and the effect of fictitious forces such as the tidal forces becomes more apparent.
This is analogous to a racecar making a steeply banked turn, on a curved surface; there is a fictitious centrifugal force for as long as the driver is accelerating around the turn.

I object here, but not sure it matters, haha. I thought I understood the object falling toward the black hole getting 'crushed' by 'tidal forces' better before the racecar analogy!

The centrifugal force continues constant at constant speed on a constant circle; it increases with acceleration at that same circle, no? Or do you mean a vehicle driven so that as it moves faster, it also describes a larger circle which is at a steeper banking —therefore centrifugal force remaining the same?

And by the way, I wish they wouldn't have called it 'fictional' forces. The forces are, to my understanding of what you are saying, only fictional in that they are a result of another force, but no less actual than centrifugal force.

Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to respond. I very much enjoyed reading it and thinking about it. And personally, I hope what I understand you to say is right, that time and space are constant, intriguing though the other concept is...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 26, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
... To our current position, what happened 7 billion years ago may seem to have been happening at a different rate from what is happening now. But to one (supposing there was one) back then, what was happening then was happening at the same rate as what is happening now seems to us now.
...
I would appreciate your input.

This doesn't make sense as stated. Trivially, (proper) time always passes at one second per second, and we measure time in terms of regular events that occur. You can't compare different rates of the passing of time over time because there is no other reference than time itself.

Mark Quayle · Jan 26, 2023

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
This doesn't make sense as stated. Trivially, (proper) time always passes at one second per second, and we measure time in terms of regular events that occur. You can't compare different rates of the passing of time over time because there is no other reference than time itself.

Thanks. I understand that the words turn on themselves, but it is hard to express time differences temporally. "The more the words, the less the meaning."

Let me try again to explain my confusion, or objection, or whatever this is: I see self-contradiction, or self-canceling of notions here —(It seems to me that): IF as some diagrams show it, space-time is expanding, and IF what some say is true, that in fact reality is expanding with space-time, then the whole concept, even if true, is different from any one position along the time-line, yet nobody should be able to tell it is so. Anywhere along that time-line looks normal. (Again, this statement depends on whether I understand correctly what they are saying (and of course, whether 'they' actually say that.)) One second per second is true, regardless of where along the timeline it is measured, and regardless of whether space-time and/or reality itself are expanding or not!

But if 'reality' is expanding @sjastro 's "tidal force" is meaningless, or only virtual, being theorized from any one POV; but if 'reality' is not expanding, the "tidal force" is real.

This is the first image I pulled up, looking for the "expansion" cone. This picture is obviously drawn from the perspective of absolute (unchanging) time. Likewise, I assume, they also mean space unchanging also (i.e. distance absolute), though the distances between items within space-time are expanding. (Eg, once atoms became atoms, they did not become bigger (relative to any one point in the timeline) atoms over time, but, perhaps, farther apart(? In this drawing they seem to be showing the heavenly bodies growing in size, though I suppose that could be an artistic mistake or even accumulation of material(?)))

File:CMB Timeline300 no WMAP.jpg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

sjastro · Jan 26, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
I agree that is an error. It is not my intent, but to show that to stop at the BB, claiming, as I have heard, "We don't have to go there", simply doesn't make sense. Science is not equipped with the tools to demonstrate one way or the other.

Now I don't mind scientists taking a recess from any one direction of pursuit where the mind must cast about for information to think further on, and hope to find clues in the behavior of particles and fields and strings and whatever, but to characterize the BB as homogenous, and to claim QM explains how the particularization happened, and to come up with outlandish self-contradictory statements, such as "popping in and out of existence uncaused" or "Nothingness is necessarily unstable"— well, I expect you get my point. Now maybe no scientist or science writer ever said anything like that, maybe I heard it from somebody wanting to denounce 'science'; whatever, I want to understand more than what I'm hearing, and don't like what doesn't add up to me.

No cosmologist in their right mind would denounce the BB as “outlandish self-contradictory statements, such as "popping in and out of existence uncaused" or "Nothingness is necessarily unstable”

Things popping in and out of existence from “nothing” has been confirmed in the laboratory as a vacuum can exert a pressure via the Casimir effect.
It is a successful prediction of quantum field theory that empty space contains vacuum energy from which virtual particles can pop into and out of existence through quantum fluctuations.
These quantum fluctuations play an important role in BB cosmology and provide clues to the nature of dark energy, the mechanism behind cosmic inflation, explains the variations in the cosmic radiation background and perhaps even the BB itself.

Mark Quayle said:
I feel like you are not getting my point, here. If, as I have heard, 'reality' itself is expanding, according to theory and the accompanying math —not just the distances between objects, but the supposed space-time itself— how could we possibly experience or otherwise detect the differences? The fine structure constant α, Planck's constant and everything else varying with the expansion, would appear the same at whatever point the calculation is made, it seems to me.

This is only part of the picture.
‘Reality’ tells us the universe is expanding at cosmological scales, but ‘reality’ also tells us at local scales expansion does not occur.
Let’s look at the Hubble constant which has value of around 70 km/s/Mpc.
At local scales let’s say the Earth’s diameter, the expansion velocity drops to around 3 x 10⁻¹⁴ km/s ≈ 0.
Even at galactic scales in gravitational bound systems such the Local Group, gravity kills expansion and the Andromeda galaxy is on a crash course with our Milky Way and is expected to merge with it in around 5 billion years.

Did you read the link I provided?
Measuring α for distant objects means you are measuring α as it was in the past.
Since α depends on the speed of light c, if c varied in the past so would α.
According to the link the maximum limit for a variation in α is Δα/α = (0.3±1.1) × 10⁻⁷ which is insignificant.
It will not turn a 13.7 billion year old universe into a 6000 year old one as YECs would hope.

Mark Quayle said:
According to what I understand, the doppler effect on light deals with only what light we currently see at whatever speed of the object that sent that light vs our speed toward or away from it. And from what I understand, we have not had enough difference in time to accurately sample whether that object is speeding up or slowing down relative to us. I don't know how they know, but by all accounts, the current universe is expanding more rapidly than it did in the past.

Anyway, if space-time is expanding, and if the rate of expansion is changing, how are time and space constant? But more to my question, how would we know? To my thinking, and I don't know enough to say why not, Planck's constant and the fine structure constant α, though it looks the same to us, would fit "the size" of the past passage of space-time. Thus my lack of confidence in so many of the statements I hear.

There are three types of redshift which can effect light, cosmological, Doppler and gravitational.
The major player here is cosmological redshift where space-time (not space and time) is not constant.
As mentioned previously the universe expands only at cosmological scales.

Astronomers use standard candles to measure distances, one such standard candle for cosmological scales are type 1A supernovae.
The distances were found to be larger than expected for an expanding but non accelerating universe.
Not only were astronomers able to determine the universe was accelerating but acceleration began around 6 billion years ago.

Mark Quayle said:
Up until now, I would have said that according to what I have heard, it only makes sense that that event horizon would, regardless from how near the point of view, still appear just as far away and the mass measure the same, yet from any one position a person is in, another position would see a different event horizon and likewise, or, 'therefore' by the equation, a different mass.

But from the way you speak, then, there is such a thing as absolute distance, and it is not measurable from only here, but (theoretically) from any place in the universe, and would still be the same from any point of view —not only to appear the same from the different point of view. Thus, there is no such thing as bent, stretched or compressed "reality". It that is true, it would explain a lot, except it would not help me at all understand the statements I get from people claiming to understand Space-time distortion and Quantum theory.

You have made a false conclusion here.
The mass of a black hole is invariant; each observer irrespective of their location can calculate the black hole mass by measuring the velocity of orbiting stars or gas around the black hole using Doppler shift.
This is basic Newtonian physics and each observer will measure the same velocity and calculate the same black hole mass.
Let me emphasize again expansion only occurs at cosmological scales.

A black hole is also a gravitational source which prevents expansion.
Space time can be distorted around black holes as evidenced by gravitational bending of light rays into photon orbits outside the event horizon as shown in the image of the black hole in the galaxy M87.

Mark Quayle said:
I object here, but not sure it matters, haha. I thought I understood the object falling toward the black hole getting 'crushed' by 'tidal forces' better before the racecar analogy!

The centrifugal force continues constant at constant speed on a constant circle; it increases with acceleration at that same circle, no? Or do you mean a vehicle driven so that as it moves faster, it also describes a larger circle which is at a steeper banking —therefore centrifugal force remaining the same?

The point of the racecar analogy was to illustrate when objects travel in curves fictitious forces exist and avoid using mathematics.

Since the maths has been mentioned here the geodesic equation in general relativity for the radial motion of an object being pulled into a black hole where the fictitious forces turn up in the equation containing the Christoffel symbol.

Now isn't the racecar analogy a simpler explanation and doesn't require a degree in physics or applied mathematics to explain fictitious forces?
I also wouldn’t labor on details behind centrifugal force as it was only meant to be an analogy.

Mark Quayle said:
And by the way, I wish they wouldn't have called it 'fictional' forces. The forces are, to my understanding of what you are saying, only fictional in that they are a result of another force, but no less actual than centrifugal force.

The correct term is fictitious force they are not made up and depend on the observer being in an accelerated or rotating frame of reference.
Fictitious forces such Coriolis forces caused by the Earth’s rotation on its axis results in the deflection of objects moving such as air circulation in the atmosphere.

Mark Quayle · Jan 26, 2023

sjastro said:
No cosmologist in their right mind would denounce the BB as “outlandish self-contradictory statements, such as "popping in and out of existence uncaused" or "Nothingness is necessarily unstable”
Things popping in and out of existence from “nothing” has been confirmed in the laboratory as a vacuum can exert a pressure via the Casimir effect.
It is a successful prediction of quantum field theory that empty space contains vacuum energy from which virtual particles can pop into and out of existence through quantum fluctuations.
These quantum fluctuations play an important role in BB cosmology and provide clues to the nature of dark energy, the mechanism behind cosmic inflation, explains the variations in the cosmic radiation background and perhaps even the BB itself.

Then vacuum ('empty' space) isn't quite the same thing as nothing, is it?

I didn't mean those comments as against the BB. I rather like the notion of the BB anyhow —I have no problem with it, other than to understand it.

I will read on and digest as I am able before responding further. I genuinely do enjoy and appreciate your time and efforts. Thank you.

sjastro · Jan 26, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
Then vacuum ('empty' space) isn't quite the same thing as nothing, is it?

I didn't mean those comments as against the BB. I rather like the notion of the BB anyhow —I have no problem with it, other than to understand it.

I will read on and digest as I am able before responding further. I genuinely do enjoy and appreciate your time and efforts. Thank you.

The problem is the layperson and creationists in particular who go on endlessly about the BB being about creation ex Nihilo haven't caught up with the science which has shown there no such thing as "nothing".
This was discussed in this thread.

The astrophysicist Matt O'Dowd gives a layperson description in this video.

Mark Quayle · Jan 26, 2023

sjastro said:
The problem is the layperson and creationists in particular who go on endlessly about the BB being about creation ex Nihilo haven't caught up with the science which has shown there no such thing as "nothing".
This was discussed in this thread.

The astrophysicist Matt O'Dowd gives a layperson description in this video.

I get your point, now. But vacuum isn't the "nothing" I was referring to, that I have always thought they were referring to. As usual, terminology needs defined for discussion.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 28, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
...IF what some say is true, that in fact reality is expanding with space-time, then the whole concept, even if true, is different from any one position along the time-line, yet nobody should be able to tell it is so.

How could reality not expand with space-time??

What 'whole concept' are you referring to? Of course, the universe will look different depending where you are on the timeline.

Mark Quayle said:
... This picture is obviously drawn from the perspective of absolute (unchanging) time.

How would time change in a 4D block universe representation? With reference to what?

Mark Quayle said:
Likewise, I assume, they also mean space unchanging also (i.e. distance absolute), though the distances between items within space-time are expanding. (Eg, once atoms became atoms, they did not become bigger (relative to any one point in the timeline) atoms over time, but, perhaps, farther apart)...

The distance between stuff that is not gravitationally bound is increasing. Not sure what you mean by 'absolute distance' in this context.

Mark Quayle · Jan 28, 2023

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
How could reality not expand with space-time??

What 'whole concept' are you referring to? Of course, the universe will look different depending where you are on the timeline.

How would time change in a 4D block universe representation? With reference to what?

The distance between stuff that is not gravitationally bound is increasing. Not sure what you mean by 'absolute distance' in this context.

I understand my questions are to some degree incoherent, because they are written from the POV of someone who does not understand what he is trying to address. Thank you for bearing with me.

Reality, as I think of it, is more than just space-time, by which (I think) I mean, distance-time. To me, if reality is expanding, it means not only that distance from center of one body to the center of another is expanding as time progresses, but that proportionally, so is the diameter of each body, and the size and distances likewise of the particles comprising the whole thing, including their fields etc etc, with time and distance and forces etc etc themselves also increasing "in measure" per unit. I have heard, or at least understood, some to say, that that is the case. And I understand about the interactions of local bodies, etc, immediate cause and effect.

This, to me, also implies that, from here looking back at light that was sent to us, say, 7 billion years ago, we see what we see. It looks consistent expect in progression/regression of cause and effect, with what we have here, even though back there it was 'smaller'. From here it cannot look 'smaller' except as relates, again, to cause and effect of bodies' and forces' motions and interactions. Thus, to me, it becomes meaningless. Your question above, "with reference to what?" is exactly what I'm thinking. We can reference it from 7 billion years ago —whatever that means— but, at least to my mind, it is meaningless.

So, I'm happy to conclude, they are not saying what I took them to be saying. Space-time as I took it to mean, is not expanding. Distance is, and accelerating.

Diamond72 · Jan 28, 2023

sjastro said:
There is no evidence for the speed of light having been different in the past and has been supported by observational evidence such as the fine structure constant α which is the strength of the electromagnetic force not being different in the past.

There are many physical constants that have been measured with high accuracy in nature. Even our machinery can be accurate within millionths. If you can maintain a consistent temperature.

Diamond72 · Jan 29, 2023

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
How could reality not expand with space-time??

The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

Mark Quayle · Jan 29, 2023

Diamond7 said:
The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

Not disputing that, here, but has that been proven? And if it has, then is it not possible for light to be able to "travel faster" than 'the speed of light' (in the same way that sound also "does" above mach one)? This was my next question after my first questions are resolved (IF my first question(s) are ever finally resolved in my mind).

But I will go ahead and ask now; maybe discussing this will help me understand the other. Why do we say that the speed of motion can never exceed the speed of light? And does light travel within the "medium" of space analogous to the way sound travels in the medium of air? Or does it travel within space the same way that electricity 'travels' along a conductor?

For many years now, and I have heard no different since, (though I am not 'up' on all the news), the 'flow' of electricity has not been considered, except for purposes of calculation and such, to actually be a flow like water from a faucet, but a displacement or even a ripple wave along the conductor, of holes and electrons exchanging places, (somewhat analogous to "the wave" done by the audience at sports stadiums), instead of independent electrons (or holes) moving down the conductor (like 'the running of the bulls' through the town). —So is light 'travel' like one of those?

And, if spaceship A, with its 'headlights' on, travels at near the speed of light (I assume relative to some local or universal constant, is what 'speed of light' means) is traveling near the speed of light directly toward another spaceship, B, which is doing the same toward A, what is the speed of A relative to the speed of B? And more to the point, what is the speed of their light emitted from each at the speed of light relative to the other?

Is their 'speed of light' relative to the craft emitting it, or relative to the 'local space constant' mentioned above?

Is the 'particles popping in and out of existence' in a vacuum, related to the results of the double-slit experiment?

Diamond72 · Jan 29, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
Not disputing that, here, but has that been proven?

yes - you can do a google search, the results are consistent. All of your questions can be put in a chatbot and they will come up with answers for you. Or a google search. For example: "So, yes, for really large distances you could say that the Universe is expanding faster than light. But Einstein wouldn't mind. His cosmic speed limit only refers to the motion of physical objects through space, from one point in the Universe to some other point."

I just wondered why we see the light from the beginning of time or when the universe was only 200 million years old. It is because that light is traveling along with us. Elements burn at their own color so we can use a spectrograph to see what elements the stars are made of. I studied the physics of light when I was in college. I worked as an electrician for the Ballet and so I know a lot about actually working with color and light.

Diamond72 · Jan 29, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
Is the 'particles popping in and out of existence' in a vacuum, related to the results of the double-slit experiment?

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon involving two or more particles at a time and it has been demonstrated in the double-slit experiment. In this experiment, waves that pass through two slits simultaneously can produce interference patterns, demonstrating that particles can be in two places at once.

We can be in two different places at the same time. We can go anywhere in the Universe in an instant. Everything is connected to everything all at the same time. God is all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:6
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

Quantum interconnectedness is the idea that under certain circumstances, subatomic particles are in some form of intimate connection with one another, no matter how far apart they are. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in experiments such as the double-slit experiment, where two particles with a single wavefunction are entangled and the measurement of one particle will immediately affect the other. Quantum interconnectedness has also been explored in relation to consciousness, suggesting that all things may be connected on a quantum level.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 30, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
...To me, if reality is expanding, it means not only that distance from center of one body to the center of another is expanding as time progresses, but that proportionally, so is the diameter of each body, and the size and distances likewise of the particles comprising the whole thing, including their fields etc etc, with time and distance and forces etc etc themselves also increasing "in measure" per unit. I have heard, or at least understood, some to say, that that is the case. And I understand about the interactions of local bodies, etc, immediate cause and effect.

That is not the case. It is space that is expanding, and the expansion is only at cosmological scales, i.e. outside gravitationally bound systems such as galaxies or galaxy clusters. The expansion of space has no effect within the galaxy or galaxy cluster.

Mark Quayle said:
This, to me, also implies that, from here looking back at light that was sent to us, say, 7 billion years ago, we see what we see. It looks consistent expect in progression/regression of cause and effect, with what we have here, even though back there it was 'smaller'. From here it cannot look 'smaller' except as relates, again, to cause and effect of bodies' and forces' motions and interactions. Thus, to me, it becomes meaningless. Your question above, "with reference to what?" is exactly what I'm thinking. We can reference it from 7 billion years ago —whatever that means— but, at least to my mind, it is meaningless.

I'm afraid I can't make sense of any of that...

Mark Quayle said:
So, I'm happy to conclude, they are not saying what I took them to be saying. Space-time as I took it to mean, is not expanding. Distance is, and accelerating.

Space is expanding, uniformly. That's why the distance between all non-gravitationally-bound structures is increasing. The expansion of space is accelerating. The more distant the object, the faster it is receding, because that's what happens with uniform expansion. The acceleration of the expansion adds a little to the increase in recession velocity with distance.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 30, 2023

Diamond7 said:
The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

That's a common but misleading statement. Space is expanding at around 73 kilometers per second per megaparsec (3 billion trillion kilometers), which, in everyday terms, is incredibly slow. But the cumulative effect of this uniform expansion over large distances means that the recession velocity of distant objects will exceed the speed of light beyond the edge of the observable universe.

Space-time, Big Bang and Black Holes.

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Senior Member

Newbie

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Newbie

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Newbie

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Dispensationalist 72

Dispensationalist 72

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Dispensationalist 72

Attachments

Dispensationalist 72

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads