Expansion of the universe

[Max_dyre]

Could the observation that the universe is very rapidly expanding be due to the space-time continuum flattening out from mass leaving our universe. i.e. disappearing? My thought is that since gravity bends space-time and in essence, wrinkles it, that a loss of mass in the universe might allow the space-time to "unwrinkle" and cause expansion. If a great deal of mass goes out of existence then wouldn't there be a corresponding "unwrinkling" of space-time? Of course the mass has got to go somewhere. Perhaps it leaks to another universe? Maybe we have a big leak or billions of small leaks such as mass going down black holes?

[mathematic]

Stuff is not leaving the universe due to expansion. Some of it is moving away faster than the speed of light, so it is no longer visible.

[Antonioctd]

where would "stuff" go?

[Max_dyre]

The question, where does the stuff go, I'm guessing of a couple things: 1. Maybe down black holes? 2. Maybe the loss of mass in nuclear fusion reactions? I'm thinking as the universe looses mass the universe expands.

 

The thought is that given that mass deforms space-time, if mass is "magically" removed from the universe, space-time gets flat. As space-time flattens out, it expands. To illustrate the thought: take a bed sheet, 4 people and a very heavy bowling ball. Put the bowling ball in the middle of the bed sheet, then have the 4 people pull from the 4 corners, the sheet would not be flat as the bowling balls weight would pull the corners close together. Someone walks by and takes the bowling ball away, the bed sheet flattens out and the result is the 4 corners are farther away from each other. Expansion.

 

Also, to an earlier reply, I was not saying that mass leaves the universe due to expansion. I'm saying mass leaving the universe (or mass being converted to energy) would cause expansion of the space-time continuum because the mass is not there to deform it anymore.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Max_dyre

[Alan McDougall]

where would "stuff" go?

 

 

No where! in a closed universe energy just dissipates to almost infinite emptiness in an unimaginably distance future cold death. Stephen Hawking has postulated that information could leak out of our universe via black holes into other universe. He proposed this theory because of the huge opposition he got when he said the universe was losing information by Enegry vanishing into black holes, he just altered this stand by saying energy did not vanish but went elsewhere a bit silly in my opinion.

 

 

 

Energy can not be created or destroyed only altered in form. Isaac Newton

Edited August 16, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[Antonioctd]

Why would black holes go in to another universe? Aren't there theories about them being short cuts inside our own universe?

 

In that case stuff that goes in a black hole would just get out from the other end somewhere else in our universe.

But I'll leave that alone. Nobody understands black holes yet...

 

There is evidence that the universe is, in fact, expanding. But I don't see anything suggesting matter is going away...

Am I missing something?

 

What appears to be true is that dark energy is a property of space it self, and it grows with it.

 

So, as space and dark energy expands, there's less density of stuff. Not because there is less stuff but because there is more space.

More space = More dark energy.

So, Same amount of stuff but more empty space and energy.

 

But now appears that "empty space" is not empty any more...

Oh well... I'll give up reading about this stuff! Or I'll end up in a mental institution

[Max_dyre]

I should have left going down black holes out of this. LOL

Anyway, nuclear fusion in stars converts some matter into energy. (In our sun, we loose about 5 million tons per sec in the conversion of mass to energy) Energy has no mass. The mass that was converted to energy can no longer contribute to deforming the space-time continuum. Consequently, I think, space-time flattens as less mass is available to deform it, contributing to the expansion of the universe. My sheet and bowling ball analogy best describes this..at least to me.

Here it is again..modified.

To illustrate the thought: take a bed sheet, 4 people and a very heavy bowling ball. Put the bowling ball in the middle of the bed sheet, then have the 4 people pull from the 4 corners, the sheet would not be flat as the bowling balls weight would pull the corners close together. Someone walks by and takes the bowling ball away (ok...how about the bowling ball getting lighter and lighter due to it radiating energy from nuclear fusion which is converting mass to energy), the bed sheet flattens out and the result is the 4 corners are farther away from each other. Expansion.

[ACG52]

The mass that was converted to energy can no longer contribute to deforming the space-time continuum

 

Energy does contribute to the gravitational field.

[Antonioctd]

Stars go BOOM and make planets...

[Alan McDougall]

Stars go BOOM and make planets...

 

What type of stars do this?

[ACG52]

What type of stars do this?

 

 

[Antonioctd]

What type of stars do this?

 

 

All of them.

 

Every thing in the universe, including us, is made of star dust...

 

The explosion is called a "Super nova" and is also used to measure big distances in the universe.

 

 

[Ophiolite]

I think it was the omission of several intermediate steps that caused Alan to question you.

 

Also, most stars do not do this. White dwarfs in a binary system may do so. Only stars around ten times the mass of the sun will go supernova following core collapse. That's a very small percentage of the total star population.

[Alan McDougall]

I think it was the omission of several intermediate steps that caused Alan to question you.

 

Also, most stars do not do this. White dwarfs in a binary system may do so. Only stars around ten times the mass of the sun will go supernova following core collapse. That's a very small percentage of the total star population.

 

Thanks you are right!

 

 

Absolutely not all stars result in planets, the primordial massive blue giants , contained only hydrogen, a little helium and maybe a tiny amount of lithium. Planets need all the elements and chemicals to form and these were absent in the early universe.

 

These blue giants due to their huge mass , went supernova, which gave the necessary conditions to create all the elements, oxygen, calcium, iron etc etc, we now see making up second generation stars like our sun and the planets revolving around it. I know this is basic stuff to most people interested in astronomy, but I put it here because of the "wrong silly post" about stars going boom and make ng planets

 

If it was a joke my appologies!

[Antonioctd]

Thanks you are right!

 

 

Absolutely not all stars result in planets, the primordial massive blue giants , contained only hydrogen, a little helium and maybe a tiny amount of lithium. Planets need all the elements and chemicals to form and these were absent in the early universe.

 

These blue giants due to their huge mass , went supernova, which gave the necessary conditions to create all the elements, oxygen, calcium, iron etc etc, we now see making up second generation stars like our sun and the planets revolving around it. I know this is basic stuff to most people interested in astronomy, but I put it here because of the "wrong silly post" about stars going boom and make ng planets

 

If it was a joke my appologies!

 

It was an exaggeration... Supposed to be a bit of a joke yes... But the main propose was to point out, once more, that there is no evidence that "stuff" is going away.

 

In this subject maybe we should be discussing if the universe is a closed or open system. I strongly believe it is closed. I don't have any evidence of it but it just feels that way. This is why I have a hard time considering stuff going out of it.

 

Any way, I din't know supernovas were so rare... Just learned something! I though almost all the stars would eventually go supernova

More research to do...

 

 

 

[Alan McDougall]

It was an exaggeration... Supposed to be a bit of a joke yes... But the main propose was to point out, once more, that there is no evidence that "stuff" is going away.

 

In this subject maybe we should be discussing if the universe is a closed or open system. I strongly believe it is closed. I don't have any evidence of it but it just feels that way. This is why I have a hard time considering stuff going out of it.

 

Any way, I don't know supernovas were so rare... Just learned something! I though almost all the stars would eventually go supernova

More research to do...

 

 

 

 

Only very very massive stars go supernova, our sun is a smallest yellow main sequence star that will never go nova but end up as yellow or red Dwalf star in some five billion years

 

Our sun has insufficient mass to ever go nova or supernova

 

In my opinion the universe is a closed system and stuff is not going away as S. Hawking proposes. In an open universe it would be different because information could leak into our universe from another or out of our universe into other universes. At present this is theory but who knows maybe there is in reality an infinity of other universe out in the great somewhere.

[Max_dyre]

Energy does contribute to the gravitational field.

 

Thanks, that settles the matter. I can fold my theory up and toss it in the trash now.

[JohnStu]

You mean matter dissapearing, because mass could "dissapear and reappear" as energy.