View Full Version : What is space ?
Is it just empty space ?
Or,
Space is consisting of some mass-less particles ?
KilljoyKlown
05-20-12, 12:41 PM
Is it just empty space ?
Or,
Space is consisting of some mass-less particles ?
Some believe space is a constant soup of virtual particles that come into existence meet their anti-particle and are destroyed so fast they can't be observed. Personally I'm not very comfortable with this theory.
Virtual particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles)
TAMallick
05-20-12, 12:54 PM
Space is a great zero. So we can get zero from zero nothing more. We should not think about great zero, otherwise we will be mad.
Neverfly
05-20-12, 01:08 PM
Some believe space is a constant soup of virtual particles that come into existence meet their anti-particle and are destroyed so fast they can't be observed. Personally I'm not very comfortable with this theory.
Virtual particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles)
Discomfort is apt.
One might ask what Dark Matter is just as easily as virtual particles. (Though this has a bit better observational evidence, the principle is nearly the same.)
Until technology advances enough to increase the accuracy of measuring and observing the infinitesimal, we have a lot of "place holders."
Looking forward to better and more accurate models to describe reality...
then again what is space which is the OP , not what it is full or has IN IT , but what is space
space is room , the room needed for the physical things to manifest
nothing more nothing less
KilljoyKlown
05-20-12, 04:00 PM
then again what is space which is the OP , not what it is full or has IN IT , but what is space
space is room , the room needed for the physical things to manifest
nothing more nothing less
Current theory says space was created with the Big Bang. So by your thinking there was no room before the BB. Can you tell me what that was called then?:D
Is it just empty space ?
Or,
Space is consisting of some mass-less particles ?
Space is not just "empty".
The idea of "empty" space was likely a reaction to the early debate involving The concept of the luminiferous ether and special relativity, where the ether included an absolute frame of reference associated with the ether and special relativity set aside that old notion. The debate and contention being largely around an absolute frame of reference vs no preferred frame of reference. Initially special relativity did not even really challenge the existence of "an ether". It just demonstrated that an ether was not required to explain experience.
It is not likely there are many physicists in the main stream who do not believe that space is not "empty". There is some speculation as to exactly what fills otherwise empty space. Perhaps the nail in that coffin came along since 1998 and the discovery of an acceleration in the expansion of the universe, from which followed the idea of dark energy. An energy that by its very nature fills the empty places in the universe, or what we have come to refer to as "empty space". What it is remains for now a mystery. Is it some kind of repulsive energy, a soup of virtual particles or some as yet unknown and undefined "other" substance. At this time anyone's guess is as good as another.
The irony here is that even as this debate unfolded in the early 1900s, Einstein had already played with the concept of a cosmological constant, which played a very similar role to dark energy today.., and was associated with "empty space".
BTW To the best of my understanding, Einstein never thought of space as stricktly speaking "empty", though I have seen no indication that he made any real suggestion just what there was in place of the "empty" void between objects. The fact that space and matter interact dynamically is one indication that at least as far as general relativity is concerned there must be some fundamental, if yet undefined, intrinsic substance associated with space.
If space is curved by the presence of matter and the dynamics of matter in the case of the frame-dragging effect, one cannot think of the intrinsic substance of space whether that is energy, virtual particles or some undefined other substance, as filling space. If general relativity is even just a good approximation of reality, space must be thought of as a thing, not just an empty set of dimensions.
“ Originally Posted by river
then again what is space which is the OP , not what it is full or has IN IT , but what is space
space is room , the room needed for the physical things to manifest
nothing more nothing less
Current theory says space was created with the Big Bang. So by your thinking there was no room before the BB. Can you tell me what that was called then?:D
thats the thing with the BB theory
they have no idea what happened BEFORE BB
hence a fundamental flaw in this theory of BB
prometheus
05-20-12, 04:32 PM
I cannot see this thread becoming anything close to scientific anytime soon so I'm going to move it. Oh yeah, I'm a mod here now. :)
I cannot see this thread becoming anything close to scientific anytime soon so I'm going to move it. Oh yeah, I'm a mod here now. :)
not surprised
it is scientific to question any theory , hence the progress of science
hence a fundamental flaw in this theory of BB
the BBT is about the evolution of this universe not the creation event or what went before so no it isn't a flaw.
et al,
OK, I'm confused. I read each post.
(MY QUESTION)
Is it not self-evident that the known universe, and beyond, is filled with "light."
Now, that may raise more questions; but it would seem that whatever "light" is, it floods the universe in every direction. So that the most distant luminous cosmic body is shining light out into the universe, on the opposite direction of Earth, a distance at least equal to the distance to the most distant cosmic object we can detect. And in that thought, there may be cosmic objects even further out, at a distance so vast, that light emanating from it, has not yet reached Earth.
Just A Thought,
R
Philosophically speaking, space entails both extension and duration, that is to say, space and time are defined by events, where metric distances and temporal rates are dependent on events. The most fundamental events could be vacuum fluctuations... not sure :shrug:
And matter is merely vacuum fluctuations...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
I am trying to imagine a 2 dimensional universe where motion through space would actually be a rotation of a screen - as the horizon object is rotated towards the "now" center of the screen, we would feel as if we are traveling towards that distant horizon.
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8241/figure1q.gif
...
Neverfly
05-20-12, 08:31 PM
not surprised
it is scientific to question any theory , hence the progress of science
River this is misleading and inaccurate.
Scientific theory is not being questioned, and if it was, that's not a bad thing, even if it can seem that way on an internet forum. A question was posed as to what space IS and there is no mainstream answer that satisfies at this time.
But to scientists, questioning science is fundamental and necessary.
Your previous comment shows a lack of understanding about BBT.
Just because you deny your own misconceptions, doesn't mean science enthusiasts bash you for questioning theory. It may well mean they bash you for misrepresenting what theory says.
Kahn, that image looks like E8- makes me wanna go surfing.
kaduseus
05-21-12, 03:19 PM
What is space?
Space is yellow.
To paraphrase:-
Space itself, in essence and quiddity is motion, and nothing else.
Common denominator, all things are in motion, spacetime is a motion model.
No part of the universe can be observed to be without motion.
As for the BBT, the model itself isn't that flawed, it's the models it's based on that are flawed.
Stryder
05-21-12, 03:55 PM
Space has many definitions which means that many stated meanings call all be accurate even though they are meant in different observational references.
For the most part space means an empty volume.
Some examples:
A car parking space means an empty defined area where you can park your car, however when a car is parked there it's still referred to as a car parking space even though it's been filled.
In Astronomy space is the vacuum that exists between astronomical bodies, which can actually contain gases at a very low atmospheric level, meteors and other types of debris.
In more in-depth areas of science space can take on different values, for instance in Vacuum space there is low level amounts of energy present which can be measured and the space between sub-atom particles isn't necessarily an empty void either.
TAMallick,
Space isn't a Zero, it's actually more like a "Radix" point, whereby it can have a value, albeit it negligible to nothing.
Buddha12
05-21-12, 03:57 PM
What is space ?
The stuff between my ears! :p
KilljoyKlown
05-21-12, 04:08 PM
Space itself, in essence and quiddity is motion, and nothing else.
Common denominator, all things are in motion, spacetime is a motion model.
No part of the universe can be observed to be without motion.
Nice observation, if something was not in motion, do you think we would recognize it? After all from our point of view it would still be moving relative to our position.
As for the BBT, the model itself isn't that flawed, it's the models it's based on that are flawed.
True but you have to have a model to work with until something better comes along. I also think it's flawed, but I don't have what it takes to convince anyone else and I won't be labeled a crackpot if I don't annoy anyone by trying.
kaduseus
05-21-12, 07:45 PM
Nice observation, if something was not in motion, do you think we would recognize it? After all from our point of view it would still be moving relative to our position.
Nothing can be without motion, the fact that you perceive it shows it is in motion. The only things that aren't in motion are the things we can't imagine (since even thought is motion).
I like looking at trees and thinking there are pure motion. As am I.
True but you have to have a model to work with until something better comes along. I also think it's flawed, but I don't have what it takes to convince anyone else and I won't be labeled a crackpot if I don't annoy anyone by trying.
What do you think is flawed about it?
I have three problems with it,
1) Hubbles redshift is due to the fact that light from stars/galaxies does not hit the mirror in the telescope as parallel lines, they have a small angle of incidence which produces a focal line instead of a focal point, these focal lines produce the redshift that Hubble noticed even before they get refracted. If the light arrived in parallel lines on a 1 meter telescope, you'd effectively be sampling 1 meter of the star/galaxies, all you would see is white, the fact you see the edges of the object show there is an angle of incidence. The mirror is effectively the wrong shape for the viewed object.
2) In the current gravity model, the model fails as r approaches 0. It does not "predict' infinite mass it fails because the result is infinite. It actually fails way before r approaches 0, at the surface of the mass. (that's for another thread though)
3) What's the point? The universe began and then it'll end? What the hell is the point of me or anyone even attempting to add to humanity through any selfless act? To show how more human I am than you? No, I might as well be as selfish as possible, screw everyone else..... which is the current problem with mankind, there really isn't any point in adding to the library of the universe, no point in sending humanoid robots out into the depths of the universe, no point in doing anything other than making as much money as possible to satiate the desire for pleasure.
In my opinion, space is made of wave-functions. Wave-functions can become things like eigenstates. Eigenstates are possible values for momentum and position. When wave-functions are energized, they become photons of light. Empty eigenstates (eigenstates without energy in them) are just empty space. The vacumm states of empty space contains virtual particles. Virtual particles would be described by wave-functions, a necessary tool in quantum mechanics. I interpret that to mean that the wave-functions exist, and manifest the virtual particles of empty space.
I predict that at extremely high energies, the wave-functions of empty space become filled with energy and behave as light, as photons.
Neverfly
05-21-12, 08:49 PM
In my opinion, space is made of wave-functions. Wave-functions can become things like eigenstates. Eigenstates are possible values for momentum and position. When wave-functions are energized, they become photons of light. Empty eigenstates (eigenstates without energy in them) are just empty space. The vacumm states of empty space contains virtual particles. Virtual particles would be described by wave-functions, a necessary tool in quantum mechanics. I interpret that to mean that the wave-functions exist, and manifest the virtual particles of empty space.
I predict that at extremely high energies, the wave-functions of empty space become filled with energy and behave as light, as photons.
wow...
hey c'mon man! Puff...puff.. pass!
Not so fast! The physics community is looking at whether or not wave-functions are real and experimentally verifiable using a method called tomography.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
But thanks for the laugh.:p
Neverfly
05-21-12, 11:17 PM
Not so fast! The physics community is looking at whether or not wave-functions are real and experimentally verifiable using a method called tomography.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
But thanks for the laugh.:p
Thanks for the links:)
Although... It reminds me of a misconception I may have... or may not.
Thanks for the links:)
Although... It reminds me of a misconception I may have... or may not.
No, I don't smoke pot. :eek:
I've thought about this for years. How are the laws of physics physically implemented? The answer was probably right under our noses. It had to satisfy Occam's razor. The wave-function is the most complete description of a quantum system. In its simplest state, it's just a wave in complex space. I knew that the mathematics of QM, and GR, had to be describing some part of nature. But quantum waves, a form of mathematics, can become electromagetic waves if given enough energy.
Anyway, everything that can be described with quantum mechanics (with wave-functions) is probably itself made out of naturally occuring quantum waves.
Neverfly
05-22-12, 12:29 AM
No, I don't smoke pot. :eek:
Me either; You just now got that?
Aqueous Id
05-22-12, 02:28 AM
Here is a way to describe space that discusses its ties to electromagnetics.
Everywhere and in every direction there is a spatial infinitesimal which transmits, or is capable of transmitting, an electromagnetic wave. It must necessarily accommodate an orthogonal pair of perturbations, one electric and the other magnetic, and to sustain the transmission in a third orthogonal direction, which is the along velocity vector c. These three characters of space, the dimensions, are not just happenstance manifestations of some arbitrary face of nature. They are the minimum bases for transmitting the three aspects of the wave.
Even in a vacuum the field disturbance is met by a resistance to the variation in polarization it imposes. Specifically, the rate of propagation is the inverse to the geometric mean of the resistances to wave perturbations on the electric and magnetic polarizations of the local space:
c\quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { { \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 } } }
The geometric mean is a centroid. On a log scale, it can simply denote the midpoint between two exponentially related quantities, such as two frequencies. Here it is a midpoint (in the sense of a spline) between two kinds of dissimilar resistance:
\ln {\quad}{ c } \quad =\quad -\frac { 1 }{ 2 }{\quad} \left( \ln { \quad { \mu }_{ 0 } } +\ln { \quad { \epsilon }_{ 0 } } \right)
How and why { \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 } establishes the velocity is fundamental to the theory of wave propagation. That the velocity is inversely related merely says that the lower the resistance, the higher the speed. That it is a centroid in the form of a geometric mean says that the contributions of both components of resistance, magnetic and electric, are equally weighted, on the log scale, in the manner of a midpoint between two frequencies.
Space has a virtual nature, one of the least intuitive being Lorentz rotation in relativistic scenarios. The Lorentz factor
\gamma \quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1\quad -\quad { v }^{ 2 }/{ c }^{ 2 } } }
can be restated
\gamma \quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1\quad -\quad { \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 }{ v }^{ 2 } } }
which is a way of noticing that all motion is referenced to the intrinsic impedance of space.
While the simplistic pedestrian view is that space is nothing more than a vacuum, realizations such this--the relationship between characteristic impedance and the Lorentz rotation--may lend to a sense of something deeper for the casual observer. Unfortunately the pervasive notion that "there's more to the story" tends to have an adverse effect, inducing the tendency to go overboard and cross into the Twilight Zone of luminscent ether and mass-like descriptions of space.
It is more logical to look straight into the correspondence between ideas already discovered--even if only superficially treated as I have done here--than to invent and reinvent explanations known to be wildly off the mark.
MisterSelmo
05-22-12, 02:33 AM
Space is what separates the words I type.
It is, by my understanding, a conceptual "nothing" between "somethings". Because in reality there's no such thing as nothing, amiright?
Gremmie
05-22-12, 03:02 AM
What is space?
It's what I needed more of, in my 1st marriage...
So, I got divorced... Just sayin':shrug:
KilljoyKlown
05-22-12, 12:12 PM
I heard that even at the atomic level atoms are mostly empty space. I've always wondered how much empty space might be in neutrons and protons or even in the quarks that make them up,
I heard that even at the atomic level atoms are mostly empty space. I've always wondered how much empty space might be in neutrons and protons or even in the quarks that make them up,
Quarks are made out of wave-functions. Why? They are described with wave-functions (QM math). Wave functions (nature) can be experimentally tested. Therefore, quarks are made out of wave-functions (nature).
A detected particle is a "currently in use" eigenstate; empty space (no detection) is an "empty" eigenstate.
KilljoyKlown
05-22-12, 03:34 PM
Quarks are made out of wave-functions. Why? They are described with wave-functions (QM math). Wave functions (nature) can be experimentally tested. Therefore, quarks are made out of wave-functions (nature).
A detected particle is a "currently in use" eigenstate; empty space (no detection) is an "empty" eigenstate.
Can you supply any links that give a bit more detail and support what you are saying?
In my opinion, space is made of wave-functions. Wave-functions can become things like eigenstates. Eigenstates are possible values for momentum and position. When wave-functions are energized, they become photons of light. Empty eigenstates (eigenstates without energy in them) are just empty space. The vacumm states of empty space contains virtual particles. Virtual particles would be described by wave-functions, a necessary tool in quantum mechanics. I interpret that to mean that the wave-functions exist, and manifest the virtual particles of empty space. I predict that at extremely high energies, the wave-functions of empty space become filled with energy and behave as light, as photons.
this just tells us what is IN space
I think of space as the result of energy and matter
inotherwords , space , energy and matter happen at the same moment
and that space per-particle actually extends beyond the particle itself to a certain circumference
inorder for the particle and/or object to behave properly , so to speak
so that space is a quality , rather than a quantity , mathematically
the consequence being , in my thinking , that if you could find where the minimum of the space needed for a atom to exist normally , as in elements in the periodic table , the multiply this space by the atoms in the Universe , you would find the expanse of the Universe as it is
Neverfly
05-22-12, 05:35 PM
I think of space as the result of energy and matter
inotherwords , space , energy and matter happen at the same moment
and that space per-particle actually extends beyond the particle itself to a certain circumference
inorder for the particle and/or object to behave properly , so to speak
so that space is a quality , rather than a quantity , mathematically
the consequence being , in my thinking , that if you could find where the minimum of the space needed for a atom to exist normally , as in elements in the periodic table , the multiply this space by the atoms in the Universe , you would find the expanse of the Universe as it is
It seems you are saying that each atom in the universe has it's own personal space at an undefined circumference. You can come this close- no closer.
The Line Must Be Drawn, here! This far and No Farther!
Ok, so with that undefined distance established as the limit, then that space, multiplied by all the atoms in the Universe, represents all the "space" that there is available.
This might upset the real estate market a bit...
I think you failed to account for just how VAST the distances between matter are in space, the absolute magnitude of the distances in relation to just how tightly clustered these gobs of atoms really are.
“ Originally Posted by river
I think of space as the result of energy and matter
inotherwords , space , energy and matter happen at the same moment
and that space per-particle actually extends beyond the particle itself to a certain circumference
inorder for the particle and/or object to behave properly , so to speak
so that space is a quality , rather than a quantity , mathematically
the consequence being , in my thinking , that if you could find where the minimum of the space needed for a atom to exist normally , as in elements in the periodic table , the multiply this space by the atoms in the Universe , you would find the expanse of the Universe as it is
It seems you are saying that each atom in the universe has it's own personal space at an undefined circumference. You can come this close- no closer. The Line Must Be Drawn, here! This far and No Farther! Ok, so with that undefined distance established as the limit, then that space, multiplied by all the atoms in the Universe, represents all the "space" that there is available. This might upset the real estate market a bit...
I think you failed to account for just how VAST the distances between matter are in space, the absolute magnitude of the distances in relation to just how tightly clustered these gobs of atoms really are.
I see your point
the thing is though , we don't know how much space is needed for any atom to behave normally so to speak , by its self , with no interaction with another atom of any type
we have to think of vibration , magnetic field , electron field , geometry , spin
Neverfly
05-22-12, 06:00 PM
I see your point
the thing is though , we don't know how much space is needed for any atom to behave normally so to speak , by its self , with no interaction with another atom of any type
we have to think of vibration , magnetic field , electron field , geometry , spin
In relation to the size of the Universe, then- we know how much space an atom takes up.
There is still a hell of a lot more observable space than there is matter. In fact, there's not enough matter to account for the matter.
See: Dark Matter.
In relation to the size of the Universe, then- we know how much space an atom takes up. There is still a hell of a lot more observable space than there is matter. In fact, there's not enough matter to account for the matter. See: Dark Matter.
because I think matter is being created
constantly
from Cosmic Plasma
http://plasmauniverse.info/
Neverfly
05-22-12, 06:26 PM
because I think matter is being created
constantly
I think you just created some space... too...
I think you just created some space... too...
look up the site on my last post
enjoy:cool:
Can you supply any links that give a bit more detail and support what you are saying?
It's kind of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. I believe that the wave-function is a real (really strange) phenomena of nature. Here are my links to support that.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
Anything small enough to be described with by a wave-function (QM math) is, in my interpretation, actually made of wave-functions (nature). Quarks, photons, protons, atoms, virtual particles are all described by QM and with wave-functions. If wave-functions (nature) really exist, then all these things must be made of them. I suppose it's like saying that something is made of that which describes it. But if that which describes it really exists, then in a sense it's true.
this just tells us what is IN space
Wave-functions are either directly responsible for the implementation of all physics (particularly relativity, gravity, space-time continuum), or they are directly interfaced with the space-time continuum. The idea is that I can generate a particular configuration of wave-functions, at least some wave-functions, using emissions of photons. I want to be able to interface directly with the space-time continuum, and induce gravity fields. Even if that interface between wave-functions and the space-time continuum is only indirect, I might still be able to induce gravity fields. That's really what is important here.
steampunk
05-22-12, 11:43 PM
Is it just empty space ?
Or,
Space is consisting of some mass-less particles ?
Space doesn't exist. Everything has mass. It just very, very thin stuff.
Sorry if my revelation has caused distress in the claustrophobic.
It's kind of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. I believe that the wave-function is a real (really strange) phenomena of nature. Here are my links to support that.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
Anything small enough to be described with by a wave-function (QM math) is, in my interpretation, actually made of wave-functions (nature). Quarks, photons, protons, atoms, virtual particles are all described by QM and with wave-functions. If wave-functions (nature) really exist, then all these things must be made of them. I suppose it's like saying that something is made of that which describes it. But if that which describes it really exists, then in a sense it's true.
If massive particles are made of wave-functions , then wavefunctions must be having some mass .
If space is also made of wave-functions , then space will also be having some mass . Is it true ?
(MY QUESTION)
Is it not self-evident that the known universe, and beyond, is filled with "light."
What about space , when it is night (there is no light) ?
Do you remember the two slit experiment? The photons or electrons travel through the slits and landing on the back board with an interference pattern. Even if the photons are fired individually, they will still interfere as long as both slits are open. What are the photons interfering with?
For this to occur routinely and easily, it has to be the particle pathways through slit 1 and slit two that are interfering, not the particles themselves. If the particle pathways are interfering, then they must be waves. Since the particle pathways are described by wave-functions (QM math), then particle pathways must be wave-functions (natural). All particles have pathways, therefore space must be filled with wave-functions. So it follows that space is made of wave functions.
If massive particles are made of wave-functions , then wavefunctions must be having some mass .
If space is also made of wave-functions , then space will also be having some mass . Is it true ?
In the two slit experiment, the wave function for each pathway will sit there until a photon or electron is fired at the slits. While it's waiting, the wave-function is not energized. But when a photon or electron is fired, the wavefunction(2) of the interfering pathways are energized by a photon or briefly take on the mass if the electron.
Mazulu, et al,
When you say: "While it's waiting, the wave-function is not energized;" and "wavefunction(2) of the interfering pathways are energized." What does that mean?
In the two slit experiment, the wave function for each pathway will sit there until a photon or electron is fired at the slits. While it's waiting, the wave-function is not energized. But when a photon or electron is fired, the wavefunction(2) of the interfering pathways are energized by a photon or briefly take on the mass if the electron.
(QUESTION)
The wave function is a mathematical description. It is not substance. The wave function only becomes apparent in the detected pattern after the particle negotiates the double-slit barrier; and only when the photon and/or electron is not being observed. As soon as you start tracking the particle, the wave function is no longer observable.
So what is happening?
Most Respectfully,
R
Do you remember the two slit experiment? The photons or electrons travel through the slits and landing on the back board with an interference pattern. Even if the photons are fired individually, they will still interfere as long as both slits are open. What are the photons interfering with?
For this to occur routinely and easily, it has to be the particle pathways through slit 1 and slit two that are interfering, not the particles themselves. If the particle pathways are interfering, then they must be waves. Since the particle pathways are described by wave-functions (QM math), then particle pathways must be wave-functions (natural).
All particles have pathways, therefore space must be filled with wave-functions. So it follows that space is made of wave functions.
Space is also filled with particles . Does it mean that space is made of these particles ?
I would say it's the other way around. Space is made of wave-functions. Particles, both massive and massless (photons) are made of wave-functions. So, particles and light are really made out of space that is excited by energy.
Neverfly
05-27-12, 05:30 PM
I would say it's the other way around. Space is made of wave-functions. Particles, both massive and massless (photons) are made of wave-functions. So, particles and light are really made out of space that is excited by energy.
This is a nonsensical thought you have pretty much made up.
This is a nonsensical thought you have pretty much made up.
Nonsensical how? Can you be very specific? I want to know, specifically, how I am wrong.
Nonsensical how? Can you be very specific? I want to know, specifically, how I am wrong.
How could you be wrong? After all, God told you.
How could you be wrong? After all, God told you.
The proof is the experiment.
Neverfly
05-27-12, 09:05 PM
Nonsensical how? Can you be very specific? I want to know, specifically, how I am wrong.
You may as well have said the Universe is made up of meters.
Yes, a meter can be used to measure- but the Universe is not made of meters. A meter is an expression, even an exact value- but not a thing. Something can be three meters in length- but it is not made of meters.
Wave function is a mathematical expression. But then, who am I to say.
I'm not made of Gods. I'm not even made of
\pi
's.
The proof is the experiment.
Which, you haven't conducted.
hansda, et al,
What we call "night" is merely a descriptive word about the intensity of the light in the visible spectrum.
What about space , when it is night (there is no light) ?
(COMMENT)
The entire universe is awash with light of one kind of another. The only thing that varies is the spectrum of the light and its intensity. There is no place in the universe you can go and not have light, whether it be CBR or something more traditional. There are probably stellar radiators that are composed of material made well before Earth's star (Sun). So far out in the universe, that the energy has not had time to reach Earth.
Most Respectfully,
R
You may as well have said the Universe is made up of meters.
Yes, a meter can be used to measure- but the Universe is not made of meters. A meter is an expression, even an exact value- but not a thing. Something can be three meters in length- but it is not made of meters.
Wave function is a mathematical expression. But then, who am I to say.
I'm not made of Gods. I'm not even made of
\pi
's. Which, you haven't conducted.
Light is nature's meter stick. One meter (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html) is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. What do you call 10 million cycles of ultraviolet light?
Answer: 1 meter.
Neverfly
05-28-12, 01:50 AM
Light is nature's meter stick. One meter (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html) is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. What do you call 10 million cycles of ultraviolet light?
Answer: 1 meter.
Irrelevant.
You may as well have said the Universe is made up of meters.
Yes, a meter can be used to measure- but the Universe is not made of meters. A meter is an expression, even an exact value- but not a thing. Something can be three meters in length- but it is not made of meters.
Wave function is a mathematical expression. But then, who am I to say.
I'm not made of Gods. I'm not even made of
\pi
's.
Irrelevant.
In a way, the universe is made of meter sticks and periods of time. We call it wavelength and frequency of light. The wave function is thought to be a complete description of the quantum system. A photon can be described as a quantum system. So which has more information about the photon? The photon itself? Or the wave-function that describes it?
One of the amazing characteristics of the Double slit diffraction experiment is that the photons can be fired at the double slits, one at a time, and the photons still undergo interference. How can the photons interfere with each other if they are fired at the slits one at a time? It makes more sense that the wave-functions themselves are the things that are interfering, not the photons. The wave functions are a description of the pathway that the photon takes from the source, through the slits, to the back wall. Wave functions are supposed to be a complete description of the quantum system.
Conclusion: Wave functions are a real phenomena of nature. The photon is just an excitation of the wave-function of energy E=hf.
Neverfly
05-28-12, 03:03 AM
In a way, the universe is made of meter sticks and periods of time. We call it wavelength and frequency of light. The wave function is thought to be a complete description of the quantum system. A photon can be described as a quantum system. So which has more information about the photon? The photon itself? Or the wave-function that describes it?
One of the amazing characteristics of the Double slit diffraction experiment is that the photons can be fired at the double slits, one at a time, and the photons still undergo interference. How can the photons interfere with each other if they are fired at the slits one at a time? It makes more sense that the wave-functions themselves are the things that are interfering, not the photons. The wave functions are a description of the pathway that the photon takes from the source, through the slits, to the back wall. Wave functions are supposed to be a complete description of the quantum system.
Conclusion: Wave functions are a real phenomena of nature. The photon is just an excitation of the wave-function of energy E=hf.
The difference between an interpretation and a conclusion.
An interpretation lets you know that more research is required.
The wave functions are a description of the pathway that the photon takes from the source, through the slits, to the back wall.
So, wave-function is describing a path . This path is made of what ?
Wave functions are supposed to be a complete description of the quantum system.
Conclusion: Wave functions are a real phenomena of nature. The photon is just an excitation of the wave-function of energy E=hf.
It is observed that , wave-function collapses in the presence of an observer . Is it also true for space ?
hansda, et al,
What we call "night" is merely a descriptive word about the intensity of the light in the visible spectrum.
(COMMENT)
The entire universe is awash with light of one kind of another. The only thing that varies is the spectrum of the light and its intensity. There is no place in the universe you can go and not have light, whether it be CBR or something more traditional. There are probably stellar radiators that are composed of material made well before Earth's star (Sun). So far out in the universe, that the energy has not had time to reach Earth.
Most Respectfully,
R
What about atomic-space ?
Are they also filled with some sort of Light ?
hansda, et al,
What we know about the forces (weak, strong -- nuclear, electo-magnetic) and gravity (whatever that is) today, will change in time. The same way that Newtonian Physics was amended by Einstein and Quantum Mechanics evolved.
What about atomic-space ?
Are they also filled with some sort of Light ?
(COMMENT - OPINION)
Just like the experiment we all did as children in school (iron fillings on a paper showing the field lines of the magnet underneath), we can detect the field, manipulate them, spin them, concentrate them, expand them, cause them to generate the manifestation of other forces (emf), what the field lines are - we don't know. But they are there and we know how to effectively use them to our advantage.
In order for the other forces to work (excluding gravity), and following the pattern, they must manifest their individual powers through space in the same way as the magnetic lines of force.
These lines of force (energy) are in constant motion. We suspect, that line of force are in constant motion. In the space at the subatomic particle level, there are force lines in motion.
Most Respectfully,
R
hansda, et al,
What we know about the forces (weak, strong -- nuclear, electo-magnetic) and gravity (whatever that is) today, will change in time. The same way that Newtonian Physics was amended by Einstein and Quantum Mechanics evolved.
(COMMENT - OPINION)
Just like the experiment we all did as children in school (iron fillings on a paper showing the field lines of the magnet underneath), we can detect the field, manipulate them, spin them, concentrate them, expand them, cause them to generate the manifestation of other forces (emf), what the field lines are - we don't know. But they are there and we know how to effectively use them to our advantage.
In order for the other forces to work (excluding gravity), and following the pattern, they must manifest their individual powers through space in the same way as the magnetic lines of force.
These lines of force (energy) are in constant motion. We suspect, that line of force are in constant motion. In the space at the subatomic particle level, there are force lines in motion.
Do you mean to say , these lines of force (energy ) as you explained above are same as path-line of light ?
Light , Light particle or particle photon is emitted by an electron or other massive particles from an atom . As long as there is no such emission of light , the atomic space is without light though the force-lines (as you explained above) are still there .
hansda, et al,
E=mc^2=hf
Do you mean to say , these lines of force (energy ) as you explained above are same as path-line of light ?
(COMMENT)
Not exactly the same as a path of light. Light paths follows the laws of motion, especially the part were they continue until acted upon by another "force."
But lines of force extend between two poles; opposite points of attractions, or subatomic particles. Lines of force move in concert - as the points of attraction move. The repetitive motion is its frequency (f).
Light , Light particle or particle photon is emitted by an electron or other massive particles from an atom . As long as there is no such emission of light , the atomic space is without light though the force-lines (as you explained above) are still there .
(COMMENT)
Remembering: Strong, Electromagnetic, Weak Forces
No particle has to be emitted. Energy is another form of mass.
The repetitive motion of the lines of force between the constituent sub-atomic particles [or its frequency (f)] times Planck's Constant equals the energy (E) exchanged (or the mc^2)(mass-energy equivalence).
(SIDEBAR)
As long as it does not emit (radiate photons, neutrinos, etc), beyond the two points of attraction, the system will not loose mass; and remain in balance. However, neutrino interaction (absorption or loss) or beta decay can effect the overall mass and may increase or decrease the field line strength.
Just My Interpretation,
Regards,
R
hansda, et al,
E=mc^2=hf
(COMMENT)
Not exactly the same as a path of light. Light paths follows the laws of motion, especially the part were they continue until acted upon by another "force."
But lines of force extend between two poles; opposite points of attractions, or subatomic particles. Lines of force move in concert - as the points of attraction move. The repetitive motion is its frequency (f).
(COMMENT)
Remembering: Strong, Electromagnetic, Weak Forces
No particle has to be emitted. Energy is another form of mass.
The repetitive motion of the lines of force between the constituent sub-atomic particles [or its frequency (f)] times Planck's Constant equals the energy (E) exchanged (or the mc^2)(mass-energy equivalence).
Do you mean to say that 'lines of force' is consisting of photon particles ?
( As the equation E=hf is true only for photon particle )
hansda, et al,
I may have made a mistake in making an association between the equation E=mc^2=hf and the force carriers of the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic forces. It is an unproven extrapolation that the individual force carriers of all four fundamental forces have a mass-to-energy or energy-to-mass equivalency.
I am also not sure that gravity is a force at all, although that is what we are generally lead to believe; close to a prevailing opinion. But if it is a force, then under the general models, it - as well - might be transmitted via a, yet to be discovered, force carrier.
Do you mean to say that 'lines of force' is consisting of photon particles ?
( As the equation E=hf is true only for photon particle )
(APOLOGY)
So, obviously, I do not know the nature or character of the actual composition of these lines of force. It was an assumption that the lines of force (when in motion) were a form of energy which had a mass equivalency. It just seemed logical. I apologize for making that unsubstantiated leap.
Most Respectfully,
R
So, obviously, I do not know the nature or character of the actual composition of these lines of force.
So , atomic space is consisting of these lines of force but not light(or light particle photon ) .
hansda, et al,
I woud say that this is implied by the model we use to describe an atom and all its constituent components.
So , atomic space is consisting of these lines of force but not light(or light particle photon ) .
(IMPLICATIONS)
The Electromagnetic Force extends rapidly moving field lines (thermal reactive) between the orbiting elections and the nucleus of the atom; and any other positively charged subcomponent.
The Strong Force field lines interact between the quarks forming baryons, which in turn make protons and neutrons; with Strong Force Field Lines containing these particles into a nucleus.
The Weak Force regulates inner free radiated particle and neutrino activity.
Field Lines implies energy extending between two, or more, points. The more energetic the atom, the faster field lines move between the components. Moving field lines inductively impart energy.
Most models imply that photons, gluons, bosons and mesons are the force carriers. These force carriers establish a network of field lines across the entire atomic structure.
That is how I see it.
Most Respectfully,
R
hansda, et al,
I woud say that this is implied by the model we use to describe an atom and all its constituent components.
(IMPLICATIONS)
The Electromagnetic Force extends rapidly moving field lines (thermal reactive) between the orbiting elections and the nucleus of the atom; and any other positively charged subcomponent.
The Strong Force field lines interact between the quarks forming baryons, which in turn make protons and neutrons; with Strong Force Field Lines containing these particles into a nucleus.
The Weak Force regulates inner free radiated particle and neutrino activity.
Field Lines implies energy extending between two, or more, points. The more energetic the atom, the faster field lines move between the components. Moving field lines inductively impart energy.
Most models imply that photons, gluons, bosons and mesons are the force carriers. These force carriers establish a network of field lines across the entire atomic structure.
That is how I see it.
Most Respectfully,
R
So , this can be said that ; force-fields are distributed throughout the space .
hansda, et al,
Yes, assuming that the temperature is above absolute zero.
So , this can be said that ; force-fields are distributed throughout the space .
(PROBABILITIES+)
There is a secondary set of highly probable and potential implications:
That because these lines of force are carried by a particle (photons, gluons, bosons and mesons), that there must be a mass-to-energy equivalency.
That these force carries are wave particles and can create interference patterns in energy form.
That the field lines can excite other particles and induce energy.
Just my thought
Most Respectfully,
R
hansda, et al,
Yes, assuming that the temperature is above absolute zero.
(PROBABILITIES+)
There is a secondary set of highly probable and potential implications:
That because these lines of force are carried by a particle (photons, gluons, bosons and mesons), that there must be a mass-to-energy equivalency.
That these force carries are wave particles and can create interference patterns in energy form.
That the field lines can excite other particles and induce energy.
Just my thought
Most Respectfully,
R
How temperature affects space or force-fields ?
I am not saying that space is consisting of force-fields . I am only saying that force-fields are contained within the space and are distributed throughout the space .
hansda, et al,
No, I'm saying that (it is probably the case) all space-time has one or more force carriers active within it.
How temperature affects space or force-fields ?
I am not saying that space is consisting of force-fields . I am only saying that force-fields are contained within the space and are distributed throughout the space .
(THOUGHT)
The implication I see is that when a region of space is at absolute zero, there is no movement. All the moving parts of an atoms collapse upon themselves, attaining maximum density. All energy has been drained or evaporated away - creating a completely disordered state of the subatomic particles. The three forces (weak, strong, electromagnet) collapse completely and emerge, algebraically added to the gravity of the object.
(IMAGINATION)
Seyferts, quasars, and blazars -- pictured which huge jets of energy emerging from them --- may be, on a larger scale, a result of the energy being completely squeezed out of material as it is absorbed by a strong gravitational field, reaching its maximum density and a state absent energy (absolute zero). This could be the point at which all the force carriers, from the three forces, are channeled into the service of gravity.
Most Respectfully,
R
The implication I see is that when a region of space is at absolute zero, there is no movement
There is no region of space at absolute zero. 2.73 K is as cold as space gets.
AlexG, et al,
i'm not sure that we know what the coldest temperatures are in the universe which naturally form. Certainly, we don't know what the temperature is in a Blackhole (an extremely high density environment), or a set of Seyferts, Quasars, and Blazars; which all might be the same thing.
There is no region of space at absolute zero. 2.73 K is as cold as space gets.
(OBSERVATION by LAYMAN)
It is my understanding that a Bose-Einstein condensate condition can be artificially reached at 170 nanokelvin. I understand that Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman, received the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work --- using rubidium atoms which were laser cooled to Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) condition. (I could be wrong.)
Note - Clarification & Apology: In this context I said "absolute zero," defined as:
0K on the Kelvin scale
0R on the Rankine scale
−273.16°C on the Celsius scale
−459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale.
However, I should have specified the more practical BEC condition as the threshold. I'll try to do better in the future. This is a most difficult subject for me to grasp.
Nevertheless, it is remarkable that with evaporative cooling a magnetically trapped sample of atoms, surrounded on all sides by a 300 K glass cell, can be cooled to reach temperatures of only a few nanokelvin, and moreover it looks quite feasible to reach even lower temperatures.
Again, that is just my limited understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Most Resepctfully,
R
The coldest naturally occuring temp is that of the CMB. The CMB permeates every cubic meter of space. This is the temperature of the universe.
The coldest naturally occuring temp is that of the CMB. The CMB permeates every cubic meter of space. This is the temperature of the universe.
AlexG, I thought they had found at least one void "out there".
And the CMB is not measured at a meter scale. It is a general background radiation, the large arrays are not that finely tuned.
At any real distance even our optical telescopes don't reach a meter scale resolution.
____________
Getting a little philosphical...
That aside a large part of this discussion hinges on how space is defined. A problem that touches almost every model involved. While we can say with some certainty that the CMB has a defined temperature range, can we also say that the CMB is space or does it just travel through space.
For most of our ideas, models and theories to function, space must have some intrinsic substance. Otherwise it could not interact with matter and become curved, giving rise to gravity (from a GR perspective). What ever that intrinsic substance is, it is not well enough defined to say it has any temperature, apart form the objects and EM radiations that seem to exist and move through it.
An accurate definition of what space IS, is one of the issues that stands in the path of a true GUT.
AlexG, I thought they had found at least one void "out there".
And the CMB is not measured at a meter scale. It is a general background radiation, the large arrays are not that finely tuned.
At any real distance even our optical telescopes don't reach a meter scale resolution.
____________
BB theory predicted the number of photons at the time of the recombination, and it works out to 400 million photons per cubic meter. I've read that on the old style TVs, up in the UHF bands about 5% of the static you see is attributable to the CMB. It's not just far away, it's everywhere.
Gerhard Kemmerer
06-10-12, 05:41 AM
When you are watching a movie, is the picture the substance or the DVD player? The latter of course. The movie is a produced effect.
Is matter, space, time etc the only thing or is something bigger generating everything?
To answer your question, space is an effect created by forces much more powerful and complex than expected. As many of the postings point out - space is an empty effect by things that are not empty - its weird I know, and fascinating. The very fact that you wondered about that question, shows you are capable of finding out.
BB theory predicted the number of photons at the time of the recombination, and it works out to 400 million photons per cubic meter. I've read that on the old style TVs, up in the UHF bands about 5% of the static you see is attributable to the CMB. It's not just far away, it's everywhere.
Does it mean that , atomic space is also full of photons ?
AlexG, I thought they had found at least one void "out there".
What do you mean by 'void' ?
Is it some region of space , where there is no force-field and no energy-field ?
What do you mean by 'void' ?
Is it some region of space , where there is no force-field and no energy-field ?
An are that appears to be empty, of stars and other observable objects. An area of the sky, far away where nothing seems to be observable. This is likely in the visible or near visible spectrum, not microwave... I don't have a link off hand.
Just a hole in what otherwise seems to be, something no matter where you look.
I don't think the idea of force fields in space has much support and when talking about energy, in terms of vacuum energy, the cosmological constant, dark energy and such, the term is mostly a place holder for something about space and the interaction of objects, we can observe.., that we have no clear explanation and/or definition for.
Energy at intergalactic scales is the same as saying some undescribed substance. It is not the same as the classical meaning of the word energy. Nor is it the same as saying matter or mass. Mathematically it makes sense in our models and theories, but we have no real macrocosmic or classical understanding of exactly what or why it is.
AlexG, et al,
The CMB is a very cumulative fog of thermal energy with a normal distribution (centered about 160 GHz with (what appears to be) one significant harmonic discovered about 283 GHz). It is almost, but not quite uniform throughout the known universe. However, there is a significant portion of the universe that cannot be detected from Earth. It is that part of the universe from which light has not had time to reach back yet. The CMB thermal black body temperature is approximately 2.725 K.
The coldest naturally occuring temp is that of the CMB. The CMB permeates every cubic meter of space. This is the temperature of the universe.
(REFERENCE for CONSIDERATION)
We don't know what the coolest temperature within the known universe is; but we have found places cooler than the CMB.
The Boomerang Nebula - the coolest place in the Universe? (European Space Agency site). (I'm not allowed to post a link; I don't post that often..)
In 1995, using the 15-metre Swedish ESO Submillimetre Telescope in Chile, astronomers revealed that it is the coldest place in the Universe found so far. With a temperature of -272?C, it is only 1 degree warmer than absolute zero (the lowest limit for all temperatures). Even the -270?C background glow from the Big Bang is warmer than this nebula. It is the only object found so far that has a temperature lower than the background radiation.
While it is the only object found, thus far, cooler than the CMR, it is huge (a Nebula). there could be millions of places that are just as cool, but to small to detect. I don't know if 1 degree Centgrade is low enough to achieve a macroscopic quantum phenomena. But it would be pretty damn close to a lowest level boson energy state.
JustMy Thought,
R
Clarification: By MQP I mean on the Condensate level. (Correction)
hansda, et al,
No, I'm saying that (it is probably the case) all space-time has one or more force carriers active within it.
(THOUGHT)
The implication I see is that when a region of space is at absolute zero, there is no movement. All the moving parts of an atoms collapse upon themselves, attaining maximum density. All energy has been drained or evaporated away - creating a completely disordered state of the subatomic particles. The three forces (weak, strong, electromagnet) collapse completely and emerge, algebraically added to the gravity of the object.
(IMAGINATION)
Seyferts, quasars, and blazars -- pictured which huge jets of energy emerging from them --- may be, on a larger scale, a result of the energy being completely squeezed out of material as it is absorbed by a strong gravitational field, reaching its maximum density and a state absent energy (absolute zero). This could be the point at which all the force carriers, from the three forces, are channeled into the service of gravity.
Most Respectfully,
R
Temperature is only affecting mass directly . Temperature is not affecting space directly .
An are that appears to be empty, of stars and other observable objects. An area of the sky, far away where nothing seems to be observable. This is likely in the visible or near visible spectrum, not microwave... I don't have a link off hand.
Just a hole in what otherwise seems to be, something no matter where you look.
I don't think the idea of force fields in space has much support and when talking about energy, in terms of vacuum energy, the cosmological constant, dark energy and such, the term is mostly a place holder for something about space and the interaction of objects, we can observe.., that we have no clear explanation and/or definition for.
Energy at intergalactic scales is the same as saying some undescribed substance. It is not the same as the classical meaning of the word energy. Nor is it the same as saying matter or mass. Mathematically it makes sense in our models and theories, but we have no real macrocosmic or classical understanding of exactly what or why it is.
So, there is no 'void of space' within our universe . 'Void of space' may be outside of our universe .
So, there is no 'void of space' within our universe . 'Void of space' may be outside of our universe .
There is no void of space, but there does appear to be at least one large area of space that is void of matter.
Empty space cannot be truly empty for both GR and QM to be as successful as they are. And yet remove the matter and we have no clear description and/or understanding of what space is. What ever it is, it is not the empty box that it is often confused with. To be curved in an interaction with matter, it must have some intrinsic substance of its own. Be that some energy or something yet unknown.
hansda, OnlyMe, et al, et al,
This is where, you and I have to disagree. Although the disagreement may be a result of a miscommunication.
So, there is no 'void of space' within our universe . 'Void of space' may be outside of our universe .
(OPINION)
There is no real definition for space. Like pornography, we just know it when we see it.
Inflation is not instantaneous. The theoretical universe (composed of everything) is expanding into something (an unknown nothingness). That nothingness is part of the universe and is space for the know material universe to occupy in the expansion; just void of anything we can confirm, and difficult to theorize about. It is beyond science. It is the infinite +1; alway just out of our reach.
Inflation is not a solid ball. It is not filling the entire volume of the expanding physical (Big Bang Theory) universe ball with material as it continues symmetrically outward from the point of origin (POI). But the materia is disbursed roughly along the normal distribution in accordance with the inverse-square law.
Unless the POI for the Big Bang is still spewing material omni-directionally from the POI, then the entire quantity of the material composing the universe is outbound from the POI.
Enormous cosmic voids and giant concentrations of matter have been observed in a new galaxy survey, one of the biggest completed so far. One of the voids is so large that it is difficult to explain where it came from.
Called the Six Degree Field Galaxy Survey (6dFGS), the project scanned 41% of the sky, measuring positions and distances for 110,000 galaxies within 2 billion light years of Earth.
No previous survey has covered as much of the sky at such a distance. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which is based in the northern hemisphere, has probed about twice as far but covers only 23% of the sky.
A team led by Heath Jones of the Anglo-Australian Observatory in Epping, Australia, announced the completion of the survey on Friday. The project used the 1.2-metre UK Schmidt Telescope in Australia and as a result looked only at parts of the sky visible from the southern hemisphere.
What is void space (like a void bladder, it is empty)? It depends on the scientific evaluation.
Space - absent of any energy, fields, subatomic particals, or force carriers - disbursed by the Big Bang, might be considered a void.
Most Respectfully,
R
hansda, et al,
Here, we disagree again.
Temperature is only affecting mass directly . Temperature is not affecting space directly .
(OPINION)
When temperatures begin to reach that of the BEC, then the collapse retracts the interlocking fundamental forces (Weak, Strong, Electromagnetic). The resulting mass creates an amplified gravitational field which pulls-in any other loose particles into the condensate.
I consider this a direct impact.
v/r
R
hansda, OnlyMe, et al, et al,
This is where, you and I have to disagree. Although the disagreement may be a result of a miscommunication.
(OPINION)
There is no real definition for space. Like pornography, we just know it when we see it.
Inflation is not instantaneous. The theoretical universe (composed of everything) is expanding into something (an unknown nothingness). That nothingness is part of the universe and is space for the know material universe to occupy in the expansion; just void of anything we can confirm, and difficult to theorize about. It is beyond science. It is the infinite +1; alway just out of our reach.
Inflation is not a solid ball. It is not filling the entire volume of the expanding physical (Big Bang Theory) universe ball with material as it continues symmetrically outward from the point of origin (POI). But the materia is disbursed roughly along the normal distribution in accordance with the inverse-square law.
Unless the POI for the Big Bang is still spewing material omni-directionally from the POI, then the entire quantity of the material composing the universe is outbound from the POI.
What is void space (like a void bladder, it is empty)? It depends on the scientific evaluation.
Space - absent of any energy, fields, subatomic particals, or force carriers - disbursed by the Big Bang, might be considered a void.
Most Respectfully,
R
The void you quoted (without a link) I believe was what I was referring to as a "void" in space.
Your conclussion I don't believe is accurate. That survey was in the visible and perhaps infrared spectrum. They were looking for "objects" in space. I don't remember there being an associated void in the CMB.
The void mentioned is just an area that seems to contain no visible matter, and is too large to be easily explained. There is nothing in the short quote of yours or that I have read that suggests that it is empty of anything other than observable material objects.
I know it is hard to get a grasp on it, but that does not mean it is equivalent to an empty box. There are just no stars and galaxies there for us to "see".
That does not mean that gravitational fields do not extend into, through and/or beyond the void. It does not mean spacetime in the void is not curved, though it may be more flattened than elsewhere (pure speculation). It says nothing definite about the nature of space itself.
OnlyMe, AlexG, hansda, et al,
I did not say it was completely void of matter; but rather, matter that is in the nebula (described as gas) is colder than the CMB Radiation. Approaching absolute zero.
I could not post the link because of the Discussion Group Rules. I had not made a sufficient number of contributions.
Your conclussion I don't believe is accurate. That survey was in the visible and perhaps infrared spectrum. They were looking for "objects" in space. I don't remember there being an associated void in the CMB.
The void mentioned is just an area that seems to contain no visible matter, and is too large to be easily explained. There is nothing in the short quote of yours or that I have read that suggests that it is empty of anything other than observable material objects.
(COMMENT)
The Coldest Region of space yet detected is the Boomerang Nebula (AKA: Bow Tie Nebula and ESO 172-07), 5K light years away.
It's colder than the background temperature of the universe for the same reason that when you blow on your hand through a small hole in your lips it's very cold. ... ... ... the Boomerang Nebula (also known as ESO 172-07) is the coldest place in the entire known Universe. ... ... ... The general bow-tie shape of the Boomerang appears to have been created by a very fierce 500 000 kilometre-per-hour wind blowing ultracold gas away from the dying central star.
REFERENCES:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMQM69YFDD_extreme_0.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/09/25/947134.htm
I mention it in the context two ways:
In reference to the observation that: "The coldest naturally occuring temp is that of the CMB. The CMB permeates every cubic meter of space. This is the temperature of the universe." (06-09-12 09:40 PM AlexG)
That because it is approaching Absolute Zero, the BEC characteristics might be in play.
Since we do not have a true, universally accepted definition of "space;" when we say "void space;" the question becomes - void of exactly what?
If the space is occupied by a black body devoid of energy, is it void space since no lines of force pass through it?
Is the area surrounding a condensate, which has neither energy, lines of force or particles; an are for which the path of light bends around because of its density, actually considered space, void space, or something else?
I realize my questions are relatively simple --- but it would help me understand the topic much further if you could explain where the other forces of the universe go in such places in the universe?
Most Respectfully,
R
OnlyMe, AlexG, hansda, et al,
I did not say it was completely void of matter; but rather, matter that is in the nebula (described as gas) is colder than the CMB Radiation. Approaching absolute zero.
I could not post the link because of the Discussion Group Rules. I had not made a sufficient number of contributions.
(COMMENT)
The Coldest Region of space yet detected is the Boomerang Nebula (AKA: Bow Tie Nebula and ESO 172-07), 5K light years away.
REFERENCES:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMQM69YFDD_extreme_0.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/09/25/947134.htm
I mention it in the context two ways:
In reference to the observation that: "The coldest naturally occuring temp is that of the CMB. The CMB permeates every cubic meter of space. This is the temperature of the universe." (06-09-12 09:40 PM AlexG)
That because it is approaching Absolute Zero, the BEC characteristics might be in play.
Since we do not have a true, universally accepted definition of "space;" when we say "void space;" the question becomes - void of exactly what?
If the space is occupied by a black body devoid of energy, is it void space since no lines of force pass through it?
Is the area surrounding a condensate, which has neither energy, lines of force or particles; an are for which the path of light bends around because of its density, actually considered space, void space, or something else?
I realize my questions are relatively simple --- but it would help me understand the topic much further if you could explain where the other forces of the universe go in such places in the universe?
Most Respectfully,
R
Let us consider space as one continuum . Any discontinuity in this continuum can be considered as 'void of space' .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.