2

When physicists assert that space is expanding, does this imply the creation of new space? If so, why do they use the term "expansion" instead of "generation"?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
omid
  • 31
  • Possible duplicate: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/156249/2451 – Qmechanic Sep 10 '23 at 23:47
  • Hi Omid. I guess you are Iranian just like myself. However, welcome here. – Snack Exchange Sep 10 '23 at 23:55
  • 1
    Note that "expanding space" is just a coordinate artifact in the first place. The contents of the universe are expanding. That's as far as the physics go. – Sten Sep 11 '23 at 00:01
  • Viktor Toth wrote a comment similar to Sten's, in answering a Quora question recently. Davis of the Davis & Lineweaver team, who have written many well-accepted papers (whose titles all contain the phrase "Expanding Confusion") clarifying differences between Special & General Relativity in cosmological contexts, has stated that the "spatial expansion" is "not a force or drag" carrying material objects like planets & stars with it. "Creation" is usually avoided in such discussions because it has a religious context in English, & "generation" invites confusion with a force (electromagnetism). – Edouard Sep 11 '23 at 00:30
  • @Sten could you please provide a more detailed explanation of what you mean by 'coordinate artifact'?" – omid Sep 11 '23 at 00:46
  • By what experiment could you distinguish between "generation" and "expansion"? – John Doty Sep 11 '23 at 00:56
  • 1
    I think the OP's question was worthwhile, in allowing clarification of persistently inappropriate verbiage in cosmology. – Edouard Sep 11 '23 at 01:02
  • @john-doty I'm primarily a computer programmer, not a physicist, and I'm just beginning to delve into the world of physics. So, I'd like to apologize in advance if my comments sound unsophisticated. From my programmer's point of view and after observing phenomena like stars seemingly striving to become singularities, I've entertained the idea that our universe might be running some kind of optimization algorithm. I'm currently working on a project based on this notion, but it's a work in progress and will take time. – omid Sep 11 '23 at 01:31
  • If my hypothesis turns out to be valid and the universe does operate on an algorithm, it would suggest that spacetime serves as generated data, forming some kind of map. This perspective has allowed me to make some interesting observations, even unifying different forces into a single concept. However, I'm aware that this may come across as a simplistic or naive viewpoint, and I won't have concrete answers until my research is complete. In light of this perspective, I speculate that the expansion of the universe could be analogous to the generation of new records. – omid Sep 11 '23 at 01:31
  • 1
    It's convenient to choose coordinates in which objects at the fixed (but different) spatial positions separate over time. This is frequently interpreted as space expanding. But it's just a coordinate choice. The universe's expansion is most naturally understood simply as the contents of the universe exploding apart. See also https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/771021/180843 and links therein. – Sten Sep 11 '23 at 01:38
  • @omid In physics, the way we test hypotheses is with experiments. What experiment could test your hypothesis? – John Doty Sep 11 '23 at 13:10
  • @JohnDoty I do have some initial ideas for an experiment in mind. Unfortunately, I lack sufficient information about what is feasible or not in a lab setting. However, based on the algorithm I've developed so far, I see light as a unique type of particle (the specifics of its uniqueness aren't crucial at this point). In the double-slit experiment, I believe that the interference pattern doesn't result from the wave-like behavior of light but rather from the movement of electrons within the detector (which is the same movement that constitutes electricity). – omid Sep 11 '23 at 13:52
  • The experiment I'm considering is based on this concept. It's still a work in progress, and I'm not certain whether it's feasible to conduct it at this stage. – omid Sep 11 '23 at 13:53
  • Also the hidden variable Einstein was referring to is, in fact, spacetime itself, and there are no probabilistic behaviors or faster-than-light connections involved. – omid Sep 11 '23 at 14:02
  • Remember that the double slit experiment as presented in textbooks represents just one of an enormous collection of interference phenomena. These are well-captured by standard theory. Back over half a century ago, I mapped out a double slit pattern with a television receiver! The TV transmitter was behind a mountain, the "slits" were mountain passes. – John Doty Sep 11 '23 at 14:05
  • @JohnDoty Interference is undoubtedly present, but I'm suggesting that it might not occur for the reasons we traditionally associate with wave-particle duality – omid Sep 11 '23 at 14:12
  • Many smart people have wasted vast amounts of intellectual energy theorizing about this. Until somebody finds an experiment whose results contract our extremely well-tested models, it will remain a wasted effort. – John Doty Sep 11 '23 at 14:22

0 Answers0