4
$\begingroup$

I am wondering if could it be possible that the Universe is expanding in some areas while contracting in other areas.

I have wondered if perhaps as one area of the Universe is squeezed inward by some force, a force such as dark energy, all the matter that is within that squeezed space is flowing outward in all directions and causing the areas outside of the squeezed space to expand via the influx of new matter. This would be similar to when you hold a small water balloon in your hand and then squeeze it.

Moreover, perhaps there may be multiple areas throughout the Universe that are being squeezed and multiple areas that are expanding at any given moment. Perhaps this could be an alternate explanation as to why galaxies are moving in different directions throughout the Universe. The overall volume of the Universe would always same the same, especially considering that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Could it be possible that the Universe is expanding in some areas while contracting in other areas?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor $\endgroup$
    – mmesser314
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 2:58
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not the expert on this matter, but this explanation really has the power - it makes a multiverse a closed system. So no need for a "dark energy"- some universes expands, just because co-universes contracts. Also because multi-verse becomes a closed one,- now energy conservation law becomes fixed,- input of "dark energy" into our universe is compensated by output of same energy in other co-universes, so total amount of energy in multiverse keeps the same, now. It should feel like a right way to solve many "conundrums" in astrophysics. $\endgroup$
    – Agnius Vasiliauskas
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 10:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ see: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/422892/… $\endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 16:19

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

The universe is indeed expanding in some places and contracting in others. That's why we have galaxies: regions of the universe that were denser than average eventually stopped expanding, turned around, and collapsed. At larger scales, our Local Group is contracting but has not collapsed yet. Conversely, cosmic voids are regions where the density is lower than average, and the expansion there is faster than the global expansion rate.

You will notice that I am speaking of the expansion of the material within the universe, and not the expansion of space itself. That's because the expansion of space is not even a local physical phenomenon in the first place! It's a common misconception that space is some sort of medium that expands and carries things with it. Expanding space has no such effect -- it is really just a convention that simplifies the mathematics in cosmological contexts. It's a coordinate choice.

See this answer for further reading on "expanding space" not being a local physical phenomenon. There are also other Stack Exchange discussions of this point, e.g. "Is the universe actually expanding?" and "Can the Hubble constant be measured locally?" Incorrect answers to these questions are unfortunately common and frequently upvoted, a testament to how tenacious this misconception is, but I've linked correct answers.

It's worth noting, though, that expanding space can have concrete meaning globally, in the sense that the total volume of a closed universe -- measured on the synchronous surfaces of comoving observers -- grows.

Also, there is a local expansion force induced by dark energy. This is sometimes conflated with cosmic expansion, but it's really just a consequence of the local dark energy content (or cosmological constant). If you intend to ask whether this force spatially varies, to the best of our knowledge it does not, but this would be better suited for a separate answer (perhaps even a separate question).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Calling real physics "not physical" because it isn't part of your mathematical model isn't proper physical reasoning. If the material is expanding, but the space is not, where does the extra space occupied by the material come from? $\endgroup$
    – John Doty
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 13:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree we need to counter misconceptions and indeed there is no "expansion force" which has to be resisted etc. Nonetheless "expanding space" is a physical phenomenon at the global level because it means, for example, that a universe of finite spatial volume (e.g. a 3-sphere) can have a volume which changes with time, and for all we know the universe might be like that. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 14:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AndrewSteane Yeah, I forgot to add the caveat about the total volume of a closed universe growing (when measured on synchronous hypersurfaces). I've added that. The key point is that the question "where is space expanding?" is not meaningful because expanding space doesn't have local meaning. We can only answer "where are the contents of the universe expanding?" $\endgroup$
    – Sten
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 15:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes I agree (related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/422892/…; physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2110/…) $\endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 16:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Edouard Whether space is equivalent to nothingness is probably a matter of semantics (and I'll make no claim on that), but the real point here is that there is no objective sense in which space can (locally) expand, contract, or move. In general relativity, the only local property of space is the (tensor) spacetime curvature. If quantum mechanics adds a vacuum energy, that's really the same thing (magnitude aside) as a cosmological constant and doesn't change the previous point. In particular, the vacuum energy is frame invariant, so it doesn't introduce motion to space. $\endgroup$
    – Sten
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 18:21
3
$\begingroup$

If expansion is growing separation of comoving and force free worldlines and contraction is shrinking separation between them then yes, in the close field where matter collapses you can describe this as space falling into the center of mass if you use the Raindrop analogy as you see in the Gullstrand Painlevé equivalent form of the FLRW metric in Proper Distance coordinates where the radial space flow velocity $\rm v=g_{tr}=-c\sqrt{r_s/r}$ is replaced by $\rm v=g_{tr}=+H r$, so in that sense in the close field where the sign is negative, space can be described as contracting while in the far field where the sign becomes positive as expanding. For a single mass in an otherwise dark energy dominated universe the distance where the sign changes would be at $\rm r=\sqrt[3]{G M/H^2}$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ But in reality angular momentum expels most of the mass even from these regions and what's left in black holes succumbs to black hole evaporation. In other words, gravity can never stabilize regions of the universe forever. It just delays the inevitable decay into the (empty) ground state. $\endgroup$
    – FlatterMann
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 4:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Sure, but angular momentum doesn't invalidate the River model, for the infalling space analogy that only contributes as frame dragging but even if the test particles are in orbit at constant radius, the space itself is still regarded as infalling (or expanding when Hr becomes large enough) in that analogy. $\endgroup$
    – Yukterez
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 4:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.