Expansion (split from Empty space inside galaxies must be different than empty space outside of them)

[geordief]

  On 11/1/2019 at 1:25 AM, Bufofrog said:

Galaxies are not moving through space faster than light.  The distance between two galaxies can increase faster than the speed of light because space is expanding without violating relativity.

Expand  

Do we have evidence that this expansion /inflation was/is entirely  the same wherever we look  in the Universe?

 

On the large scale, I imagine as locally (on small scales)  we don't see it ,do we?

 

I am just wondering if there is a connection between relative motion and inflation  or whether these are two entirely unrelated phenomena.(they do seem awfully similar on the face of it)

 

Is inflation kind of like a background where relative motion does its own thing ? Did inflation come early on and relative motion later on ? Did the former "bleed into " the latter in any sense?

[geordief]

  On 11/1/2019 at 2:23 AM, MigL said:

@geordief
All motion is relative.
Expansion/inflation is not motion.

 

Expand  

Is inflation/expansion theorized to have started before there was relative motion between objects? (before there were objects?)

Or did the two phenomena start at the same time?

 

Is there any connection at all between the two phenomena or is the similarity** just on the surface?

 

**I mean to an observer (in the layman sense) they seem similar.

[Mordred]

How would you measure inflation or expansion without objects to use as a reference ? 

Though keep in mind the object can also refer to particles.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Mordred

[geordief]

  On 11/1/2019 at 11:52 AM, Mordred said:

How would you measure inflation or expansion without objects to use as a reference ? 

Though keep in mind the object can also refer to particles.

 

Expand  

Yes, I see that (space seems to be  relative in that sense). Is there a sense in which the object and the Space between them are two sides of the same coin?

 

As there is space-time ,can  there be "space-object"? (not the same "space")

Do objects  actually have infinite spatial extent (except when they interact perhaps)?

 

[michel123456]

These questions are related to the concept of field, I guess.

[swansont]

  On 11/1/2019 at 12:54 PM, geordief said:

Yes, I see that (space seems to be  relative in that sense). Is there a sense in which the object and the Space between them are two sides of the same coin?

 

As there is space-time ,can  there be "space-object"? (not the same "space")

Do objects  actually have infinite spatial extent (except when they interact perhaps)?

 

Expand  

Spacetime is a geometry. Objects are not.

 

"Do objects actually have infinite spatial extent" is kind of a loaded (and vague) question - it depends on what you mean.

[geordief]

  On 11/4/2019 at 10:49 AM, swansont said:

 

 

"Do objects actually have infinite spatial extent" is kind of a loaded (and vague) question - it depends on what you mean.

Expand  

Well I think it is accepted that the   object's field* is infinite in extent. Does that mean we can say the same about the object itself? (or at least stop thinking about the object as able to be described as bounded in any sense at all)

 

Since space can be thought** of as the "mortar" between the "bricks " of objects does the above description of objects require a (struggling for the right word...."complementary"?) similar description of space?

Are the "mortar" and the "brick" essentially the same thing?

*hope I am right and that all objects have an associated field
**this is how I have always thought of it.

Edited November 4, 2019 by geordief

[studiot]

  On 11/4/2019 at 11:15 AM, geordief said:

Well I think it is accepted that the   object's field is infinite in extent. Does that mean we can say the same about the object itself? (or at least stop thinking about the object as able to be described as bounded in any sense at all)

Expand  

Not necessarily, no.

 

Here is an example.

Mathematically a sine wave goes on forever in both directions along the x axis. It is not bounded in x.

Yet it's value (y) is always bounded by the lines y=+1 and y=-1.

Now the sine wave is very common in mathematical expression where we are modelling something in Physics (particularly fields)
In the physical world we have never seen a sine wave that goes on forever.
The oscillation has a definite start point and points the other way it has not yet reached, or points it can't reach because of a barrier.

So we model the vibrations of a guitar string as a partial sine wave which starts at the bridge and ends at the top fret, although the mathematical sine wave extends beyond this in both directions forever.

This same model come in very handy when modelling an electron in an atom in quantum mechanics.
Here it is called 'particle in a box'.

[geordief]

  On 11/4/2019 at 11:26 AM, studiot said:

 

This same model come in very handy when modelling an electron in an atom in quantum mechanics.
Here it is called 'particle in a box'.

Expand  

The "box" in the atom corresponds to the bridge/top fret of the guitar?

 

The discontinuities in QM  work against the idea of infinite spatial extent? (that sounds vague;I am fishing ,I suppose) 

[studiot]

  On 11/4/2019 at 11:39 AM, geordief said:

The "box" in the atom corresponds to the bridge/top fret of the guitar?

 

The discontinuities in QM  work against the idea of infinite spatial extent? (that sounds vague;I am fishing ,I suppose) 

Expand  

Fish away, that's great, I'll supply the chips.

 

The ends of the box correspond to the bridge and fret. The vibration  doesn't continue beyond these points, although the string goes a bit further to the anchor points.

But remember this is just an analogy.
It is not exact.

If you add 3 + 5 you get 8.
Simple and precise.
But if you add sin(35) + tan(44) you get something much more complicated.

So the analogy (3+5) is simpler than what it is representing.

[swansont]

  On 11/4/2019 at 11:15 AM, geordief said:

Well I think it is accepted that the   object's field* is infinite in extent. Does that mean we can say the same about the object itself? (or at least stop thinking about the object as able to be described as bounded in any sense at all)

Expand  

There can be regions where fields are excluded.