View Full Version : What is space?
The Victorians thought space was made of a material which they called the aether. This was later disproved. In the 1940's on the radio, following ideas of the time, Superman fought against strong currents in space and fifties SF had storms in space.
More recently, many considered space a vacuum with few atomic particles per cubic centimeter, through which EMR and gravity travels. But the Big Bang idea changed all that. We are told that space is a "something" which can ignore the light speed limit and expand very much faster. It is no longer just the space between matter but exists on it's own and has outstripped the matter and energy expansion of the universe.
If it is "something", where does all the new space come from? Or can it miraculously expand forever without changing it's structure/density/whatever, and so remain exactly the same?
Even more amazing. Space was always considered to be 100% transparent to all forms of energy and EMR but now we find it is (maybe) 100% opaque to dark energy which acts on it like infra-red radiation on a gas, causing it to expand into ever larger areas.
Even stranger, space which many laymen thought of as "nothing" because it is a vacuum, drags along entire galaxies as it expands, so we are told.
What is space?
cosmictraveler
09-25-08, 08:32 AM
What is space?
The Final Frontier! :D
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/b/b4/Star_Trek_V_The_Final_Frontier_DVD_cover.jpg/292px-Star_Trek_V_The_Final_Frontier_DVD_cover.jpg
What is space?
The distance between two objects.
Good question.
I think of space as infinite in area and time.
I think of space a not expanding but has all ways existed.
I think of space as energy/information and the interplay of it's fluctuating density.
I think of the near vacuum as being the opposite of the near singularity, which neither can reach infinite nothing or infinite density.
MacGyver1968
09-25-08, 11:34 AM
It's the area between my ears.
What is space?
relation between objects of the universe. Lack of those objects is space.
However if you really think about it...is there space that is actually devoid of everything? Even vacuum has neutrinos flowing through it and other quantum particles and perhaps gravity particles (but LHC will tell us if they actually exist), in addition to various forms of energy. So there is no true space, or true emptiness and void.
It is no longer just the space between matter but exists on it's own and has outstripped the matter and energy expansion of the universe.
huh? Thats not true.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-25-08, 01:24 PM
Space is simply the area in which things exist. If there is an aether or expanding curved whatever, that's not space. Space is the area in which it exists.
cosmictraveler
09-25-08, 03:14 PM
Space is what I have left in my bank account!
Space is the expanding energy of the universe.
It has a charge.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-25-08, 04:06 PM
There is energy in space. Space is not energy.
Steve100
09-25-08, 04:13 PM
I am no physicist, but my understanding is that space is just another construct of the human mind, much like time.
There is energy in space. Space is not energy.
Universe is the energy, so even "empty" space is energy.
Its charge is called the cosmological constant.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-25-08, 04:49 PM
Saying space is energy is saying area is energy.
Absurd
Saying space is energy is saying area is energy.
Absurd
Well, in our universe it is.
What is space?Excellent post.
What about the quantum foam of virtual particles with zero point energy? Or the dimensions curled up in superstrings?
As space expands, the quantum foam must necessarily be generated so that the fluctuations can stay below a certain size (area/volume) largely dictated by the Planck length. So is quantum foam the source of dark energy?
Of course, where the hell is the foam coming from? Probably being fed by an energy field from a dimension orthogonal to this one... So in comes string theory.
Just goes to show that we shouldn't laugh too much at the flat earth and ether guys from asunder, cause the clear answer to your question is: we don't know. :p
cause the clear answer to your question is: we don't know.
You mean you don't know. Speak for yourself.
The distance between two objects.
What if there's a concrete wall inbetween? Is that wall now space?
superluminal
09-25-08, 08:27 PM
What if there's a concrete wall inbetween? Is that wall now space?
If (Q) says it is, then it is. Don't argue, just obey.
http://tantek.com/presentations/2006/03/building-blocks/obey.png
superluminal
09-25-08, 08:37 PM
Mayan or Aztec?
superluminal
09-25-08, 09:03 PM
Post-graffiti.
Oh.
Mayan or Aztec post-graffiti?
quantum_wave
09-25-08, 11:16 PM
The cosmological consensus called the standard cosmology primarily consists of Big Bang Theory with Inflation (BBT). BBT includes General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle. In that context, space and time are coupled and existed immediately after the initial event from which expansion of the universe began. A period of exponential expansion occurred after which the matter and energy that we call our expanding observable universe followed a course of nucleosynthesis to form matter as we know it and from which galactic structure and larger scale structure took shape. As expansion proceeds, space is added to the universe and the galaxies for the most part separate from each other in the same way no matter which way you look and no matter where you are looking from within the universal co-moving coordinate system.
Much of the standard cosmology is theory and according to the scientific method, even the best established theories have a characteristic called tentativeness. That means that as science progresses, any pillar of cosmology can be torn down if new observations or evidence demands change.
In the OP the aether was mentioned. It was a theory that failed the test. But some say though that mass and the aether are connected in such a way the mass drags the aether and so the tests were unable to detect it.
It was mentioned that space is simply where things happen, or that it is energy, or that it is filled with energy, or that it is a vacuum, or it is filled with the vacuum energy density of the cosmological constant, or this or that. It was mention that we just don't know, and it was said that people should speak for themselves.
So I will.
Space is potentially infinite. Space has always existed and is filled with energy, there are no voids. The energy that fills space has energy density at all points in space. The energy density is constantly fluctuating at all points in space. Energy density fluctuations have always been going on in all space.
There has always been so much energy in space that matter is forced to take shape from the energy density fluctuations and so matter has always existed. Matter forms from energy in quantum increments.
The quantum increments are the result of quantum waves that converge and the convergences focus energy into high density spots. When a high density spot equals a quantum of energy it forms a new spherically expanding quantum wave in a process called quantum action. Quantum action is the force that takes place at the most infinitesimal level in the tiniest meaningful amount of space.
Multiple spherically expanding quantum waves continually overlap, forcing energy into convergences at their intersections as the overlaps occur, and new spherically expanding quantum waves are continually generated by that process. The energy density in the particular energy environment determines the frequency of quantum action.
The background energy and the continual quantum waves that traverse the energy background make up the aether. When the energy density in a given space is high enough, the occurrence of quantum action (frequency) and the formation of quantum waves from quantum action will cause matter to stand out from the background.
Mass contains energy in quantum increments and each of those increments is characterized by a rapid and continuous succession of quantum action within mass for each quantum of energy composing the mass. This continuous quantum action forms a continuous sequence of high density spots that gives mass its "mass", and each spot bursts into a quantum wave that converges with other waves in mass and forms new high density spots to maintain the mass. A portion of each wave passes out of the mass and causes gravity but that is another thread :).
In this way, matter forms in space from the energy background and occupies space within the background.
Spherical expansion: Spherical expansion is characterized by co-moving spherical coordinates as the radius increases, just like the volume of the space occupied by a balloon expands when you blow it up.
Energy waves: When energy is in the process of expanding spherically, it is an energy wave. An energy wave is an expanding sphere of energy.
Consistent energy content: When an energy wave expands the energy is distributed consistently so that the energy density at each coordinate point in the sphere is the same, and as expansion progresses and energy density declines it declines equally at all points throughout the sphere; the energy density is said to remain equalized across the volume as it increases.
Equal energy content: A quantum of energy is defined as the smallest energy increment that can participate in the formation of matter. Each quantum wave contains a quantum of energy and all quantum waves therefore are of equal energy content.
Overlapping waves: Spherically expanding energy waves intersect and the intersection forms what are called 3-D lens shaped intersections. Geometrically, there are two spherical caps per intersection, and the number of surfaces of each 3-D lens equals the number of spheres intersecting to form the convergence.
Convergence: This is a 3-D space confined within spherical surfaces where the number of surfaces is equal to the number of spheres intersecting to form the 3-D space. The volume of the convergence space relative to the sum of the volumes of space of all of the intersecting spheres is diminished by each additional sphere that becomes involved by intersecting with the convergence space (complicated so don't worry about it). When a convergence contains a quantum of energy it bursts into expansion of its own forming a new spherically expanding quantum energy wave.
Quantum of energy: This is the tiniest amount of energy that is useful. It is the amount of energy involved in quantum action and that is contained in each quantum wave. It is the minimum amount of energy that can stand out from the background aether.
That is space and what is going on in it IMHO.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-26-08, 12:51 AM
Well, in our universe it is.
In any universe, anywhere.
You mean you don't know. Speak for yourself.Who I obviously speak for, as evidenced by the replies, are all the people on this thread - yourself included.
So I mean we don't know. Don't dare to speak for me and then tell me to speak for myself.
I'm a fan of quantum_wave. Very elegant account. Of course, elegance isn't everything...
quantum_wave
09-26-08, 08:15 AM
I'm a fan of quantum_wave. Very elegant account. Thank you :o. I'm adding you to my Buddy List.Of course, elegance isn't everything...True. I'm just looking for a way that things could work at the quantum level. It is protoscience because it is consistent with observations but direct testing is not possible.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-26-08, 08:23 AM
Start a new thread.
James R
09-26-08, 09:30 AM
We are told that space is a "something" which can ignore the light speed limit and expand very much faster. It is no longer just the space between matter but exists on it's own and has outstripped the matter and energy expansion of the universe.
If it is "something", where does all the new space come from? Or can it miraculously expand forever without changing it's structure/density/whatever, and so remain exactly the same?
Einstein's theory of general relativity (our current best theory of space) does not say that space is any kind of material thing, like the old aether. Space is a the distance between things. It has no "solid" form (or gaseous or liquid or plasma). It is not a substance.
When you measure a distance with a ruler or the odometer on your car, you aren't measuring the length of the "substance" of space. You're measuring the distance between two points. You can't pick up the distance and eat it, or play with it, or squash it, or toss it around. It isn't a "thing" in that sense.
Even more amazing. Space was always considered to be 100% transparent to all forms of energy and EMR but now we find it is (maybe) 100% opaque to dark energy which acts on it like infra-red radiation on a gas, causing it to expand into ever larger areas.
Really?
Even stranger, space which many laymen thought of as "nothing" because it is a vacuum, drags along entire galaxies as it expands, so we are told.
No dragging is required. Galaxies just sit still in the space as it expands.
I am no physicist, but my understanding is that space is just another construct of the human mind, much like time.
Space is the thing that keeps everything from happening in the same place.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-26-08, 11:35 AM
Einstein's theory of general relativity (our current best theory of space) does not say that space is any kind of material thing, like the old aether. Space is a the distance between things. It has no "solid" form (or gaseous or liquid or plasma). It is not a substance.
When you measure a distance with a ruler or the odometer on your car, you aren't measuring the length of the "substance" of space. You're measuring the distance between two points. You can't pick up the distance and eat it, or play with it, or squash it, or toss it around. It isn't a "thing" in that sense.
Really?
No dragging is required. Galaxies just sit still in the space as it expands.
Space is the thing that keeps everything from happening in the same place.
We shouldn't need Einstein to tell us that but maybe it will help with some people.
But it expands????? Having no substance, it can't expand.
Einstein's theory of general relativity (our current best theory of space) does not say that space is any kind of material thing, like the old aether. Space is a the distance between things. It has no "solid" form (or gaseous or liquid or plasma). It is not a substance.I like to think that Einstein describes the dynamics of space on the large scale, and quantum mechanics describes the substance of space on the small scale. String theory and quantum_wave theory attempt to do both. But hey, I'm no expert...
Having no substance, it can't expand. And in what way does lack of substance preclude expansion? Your not trying to deny the anticedent are you?
-Andrew
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-26-08, 10:00 PM
Having no substance, there's nothing to expand! There's nothing to space but space. It's the 3D area everything exists in. It's not made of anything.
Maybe SOME THING(S) is expanding farther out into space.
Having no substance, there's nothing to expand! What about length/distance? The very things which define space.
Distance is a discrete quantity. Can quantities increase? Yes. Therefore, space (the distance between things in our universe) can increase. Evidence points that the universe is increasing in volume; that is, by definition, the expansion of space.
-Andrew
quantum_wave
09-27-08, 01:21 AM
What about length/distance? The very things which define space.
Distance is a discrete quantity. Can quantities increase? Yes. Therefore, space (the distance between things in our universe) can increase. Evidence points that the universe is increasing in volume; that is, by definition, the expansion of space.
-AndrewYour point is clear and well said, but the evidence is that the galaxies are moving away from each other and that is true no matter which way we look and is said to be true no matter where you might be looking from. It is not so clear that the universe is increasing in volume. The space occupied by the observable universe is increasing in volume, true, but if we are in an expanding universe, it is the galaxies that are separating to encompass an increasing volume of space, not necessarily space itself increasing.
The distinction is that galaxies formed from matter that was born in an expanding energy environment will have separation momentum if I can coin a phrase. The momentum of the initial expansion was imparted to matter as it formed. Momentum is conserved and so the separate galaxies have the sum of the momentum of the particles from which they formed. The conserved momentum, galaxy by galaxy would be translated into galaxies that are all moving away from each other just like the initial particles had separation momentum when they formed, IMHO.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-27-08, 01:30 AM
What about length/distance? The very things which define space.
Distance is a discrete quantity. Can quantities increase? Yes. Therefore, space (the distance between things in our universe) can increase. Evidence points that the universe is increasing in volume; that is, by definition, the expansion of space.
-Andrew
Length/distance does not define space. It measures portions of it.
If anything grows or expands, it grows into more space that's already there.
Blow up a balloon. It expands into more space than it previously occupied. It doesn't create more space.
space occupied by the observable universe is increasing in volume, true, but if we are in an expanding universe, it is the galaxies that are separating to encompass an increasing volume of space, not necessarily space itself increasing.
I don't feel like participating in the Inflation vs explosion debate that likes to crop up in this forums every now and then, at this time. I'm going to stick with what the scientific consensus says is the best theory based on current evidence.
EDIT:
Length/distance does not define space. It measures portions of it. Which still supports my point: space thus does have a discrete quantity which we can measure. A quantity could of course expand, ergo, nothing there precludes space from expanding, and we have proven that it poses a variable which may expand.
If anything grows or expands, it grows into more space that's already there. If any object in space moves away, it moves through space. Yes. But that doesn't preclude space itself from expanding.
Blow up a balloon. It expands into more space than it previously occupied. It doesn't create more space. False analogy; there's nothing about a balloon blowing up that precludes space from expanding. It does however demonstrate where the conceptual stumbling block lies.
Blow up the same ballon, but mark a bunch of dots on it. Measure the distance between them. Blow it up some more now. Measure the distance between them again. They all increased eh? The surface are aof the balloon expanded. It didn't expand 'into' anything (no, it didn't expand into the room either: surface area occupies no volume; though the balloon's material may, which is what you would observe to be taking up space), it simply expanded.
-Andrew
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-27-08, 01:56 AM
The line you quoted is elaborating on the the answer to the thread question in a different way than I did. That line & most of that post is on topic.
From a scientific background, space is a vacuum, and a continuum of also time.
It's a physical sheet, where particles spontaneously bubble. This is a quantum aether, so the aether is actually needed in physics, and hasn't been disproven as such, but rather reshaped over the years.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-27-08, 03:27 AM
Space is not a sheet. Space is not a pillowcase. Whether space is a vacuum depends on whether any thing is in it.
If there is an aether or whatever new name or reshaping scientists come up with, that is not space. It is in space.
Back to the balloon : The balloon is the aether or fabric or quantum bubbly broth or whatever. It is in space.
It's closer to a sheet than it is a pillow case, as recent observations show that the universe is nearly flat.
CheskiChips
09-27-08, 05:17 AM
It's closer to a sheet than it is a pillow case, as recent observations show that the universe is nearly flat.
And it's closer to jello than a sheet.
Yes. Yes it is. It's very ellastic. Jello can rip easily though.
quantum_wave
09-27-08, 08:22 AM
I don't feel like participating in the Inflation vs explosion debate that likes to crop up in this forums every now and then, at this time. I'm going to stick with what the scientific consensus says is the best theory based on current evidence.
...AndrewThe formation of matter during expansion is not an "explosion" position. It is actually Big Bang nucleosynthesis as I understand it.
The presence of space surrounding the expansion is a clear departure; a departure from the scientific consensus if that consensus says there was no space or time before the Big Bang which is what it sounds like you are agreeing with. Are you saying that space is being created where there was no space? What was there before space? That is the issue, expansion into existing space not explosion vs. inflation IMHO.
Inflation happened around 10^{-35}s to 10^{-32} after big bang, and it refers to the expansion expanding faster than light.
MarcAC. A good answer and a fair answer. I agree on "we don't know".
What if there's a concrete wall inbetween? Is that wall now space?
Isn't the wall considered an object? :rolleyes:
Who I obviously speak for, as evidenced by the replies, are all the people on this thread - yourself included.
Your ignorance doesn't preclude my understanding.
So I mean we don't know. Don't dare to speak for me and then tell me to speak for myself.
No, YOU don't know. I do know, as do others. So, go back to your bible thumping.
Quantum Wave. I thought of matter being energy some years ago but matter is "stable" and on an atomic scale, in motion so that instead of a "solid particle", you'd have an average position where the particle seemed to be though it was in many very close to that places. It seemed unlikely so I put it on a back burner.
James R. What is expanding space in the big bang idea? How can you have more of "nothing"?
How does dark energy expand the universe?
For the space to expand between galaxies requires a four physical dimension hypersphere, like the balloon anaology. How does a hyperspehere work?
andbna. The balloon analogy works because there is something "inside" fuelling expansion and because there is a material between the marks on a balloon that holds everything together.
A 3D sphere expanding would mean a definite centre to the universe which everything expands away from. A 4D hypersphere where the universe is "the 3D skin" would mean everything expanding away from everything else but would need something "inside" to fuel expansion and something to hold our universe together so that expansion was uniform and we don't end up with a "balloon" which was full of lumps and depressions.
Inflation happened around 10^{-35}s to 10^{-32} after big bang, and it refers to the expansion expanding faster than light.
How can space expand faster than light when it permits nothing to move through it faster than light?
If areas of space expand as some now claim, did we have many smaller big bangs which joined up? If so, this would not create a uniform CMB. The opposite in fact.
Space and time can move faster than light. It does not violate special relativity. That is why, when spacetime moved at superluminal speeds, it dragged matter with it, so that matter does not move faster than light itself.
madanthonywayne
09-27-08, 03:21 PM
This is an interesting topic. When I think of the big bang, I tend to think of a singularity exploding into nothingness (space). I think of the expansion of space as the expansion of the matter within it. Yet, I believe that the theory is that "space" itself is expanding, not just the matter within it. So this implies that "space" is something.....
If one could somehow travel instantaneously beyond the limits into which the universe has expanded (the limits of "space") what would one find there? Would there be anything? Would it be emptyness? Would it be an area where the rules of physics as we know them don't apply?
Or is this, perhaps, part of Einstein's light speed limit? Could one never travel beyond the limits of space because the universe is expanding at the speed of light (I have no idea what the speed of the expansion actually is) and so someone within the bounds of space could never overtake the "boundry"?
Of course, there's also the idea that the universe is infinite yet expanding. There's no limit, yet it just keeps getting bigger. How does something already infinite in size grow?
I believe rather, its the continuous expansion of spacetime which refers to infinity. So, there is always going to be more space every picosecond. This is the infinite spacetime in which the theory talks about.
Infinity is never 1, or 100^{10,000}. These numbers are finite, because they have a limit. But spacetime is continuously expanding, so it is infinite.
And the current speed of expansion, is superluminal. There was a time when it was expanding at the speed of light itself, but something has accelerated this.
OilIsMastery
09-27-08, 04:07 PM
"The Great Chinese of Königsberg" taught us that space is the a priori form of our intuition...:D
Well, it doesn't make sense.
quantum_wave
09-27-08, 04:57 PM
"The Great Chinese of Königsberg" taught us that space is the a priori form of our intuition...:DThe unintuitive limit beyond which there is no beyond.
Your ignorance doesn't preclude my understanding.Likewise (see below).No, YOU don't know. I do know, as do others. So, go back to your bible thumping.Well, if you're talking about some personal religious knowledge - sure, you do. ;) In science, though, knowledge demands significant consensus - lacking here.
So you define "Bible thumping" as: having a go at atheists who know hardly an inkling of science and try to use it to support their assertions? :D
Taught you a few lessons in the Religions forum, didn't I? It is evident in your radiant affection. Don't worry, I can and will give you some good lecturing here too. Go ahead, just post some substance... Then we'll be able to settle the issue of ignorance.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-27-08, 09:29 PM
Space and time can move faster than light. It does not violate special relativity. That is why, when spacetime moved at superluminal speeds, it dragged matter with it, so that matter does not move faster than light itself.
Space does not move.
Vkothii
09-27-08, 09:32 PM
Space does not move.You think?
Or you know this to be the case? Can you provide any supporting evidence, any fundamental reason that shows definitively "space does not move"?
superluminal
09-27-08, 11:26 PM
Are any of you really expecting an answer to this question? That space can be described in terms of some other "entities"? That space is made of X, Y, and Z components?
Space contains things. Like particles and energy. It's just a word for the distance between things.
So how can space be expanding, which it certainly appears to be? I have no idea. I've never heard a coherent explanation of the mechanism by which the metrics of distance in the universe can expand. Or even what that really means. Maybe someone esle knows this. I'd love to hear it.
Vkothii
09-27-08, 11:31 PM
I asked about the "space does not move" claim, because logically you need a reference frame to determine the motion of anything.
To determine if space itself is moving, or not moving, would require an absolute frame of reference, wouldn't it? But no such thing exists that we know about (yet).
Although I recall something about the CMB having some sort of 'axis' or preferred direction (don't know where that ended up, though).
superluminal
09-27-08, 11:55 PM
Agreed. And yes, the CMB appears to have a pronounced dipole in the general direction of some constellation which I can't remember.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-28-08, 01:13 AM
There is nothing to space to move. Things in space may move.
To determine whether space is moving, 1 must understand what space is & isn't.
quantum_wave
09-28-08, 09:22 AM
Quantum Wave. I thought of matter being energy some years ago but matter is "stable" and on an atomic scale, in motion so that instead of a "solid particle", you'd have an average position where the particle seemed to be though it was in many very close to that places. It seemed unlikely so I put it on a back burner.It is on the front burner for me. True, particles have a kind of stability and unpredictability that seems to defy their composition as energy.
Here is how I think the two view work together:
Matter exists because the particles are stable and important combinations of particles have electromagnetic characteristics which serve to keep them apart and cause them to work together instead of individually or instead of merging into single particles.
Particles are separate and stable in most ranges of energy density and can display their mass, gravity and charge.
Only under extreme compression does the energy density get too high, and when it gets too high particles can no longer function separately.
At that high energy density, particles not only cease to perform the mass and gravity function, but also they cease to move separately and the charge characteristics are lost because charge requires the particles to have different momentum relative to each other.
The result is that IMHO matter cannot function in the core of a big crunch.
The mass/gravity function and the electromagnetic components of photon energy emerges from the mass gravity function. IMHO here is how:
Mass that goes into a big crunch is converted to the "dense" state of energy, i.e. too dense to be considered mass because mass/gravity doesn't work in the dense state. Gravity fails and the big crunch subsequently fails, releasing energy in its dense state, compressed to the maximum energy density possible at the moment of release.
The onset of the dense state requires a particular extremely high energy density that can only be achieved when the equivalent of a whole arena of matter and energy enters the big crunch. This is a tiny amount of the total matter/energy of the greater universe, but it is equal to the total matter/energy of our observable expanding universe (an arena) all crunched up into the dense state of energy inside the big crunch.
Now here is the important premise in regard to how matter can be stable particles throughout a wide range of energy densities and yet fail as matter/energy crosses the threshold into the dense state. Matter always forms from energy that has been compressed into the dense state. Matter does not form from energy that has expanded to the equilibrium state of energy (de Sitter space if you think in those terms). Gravity does not allow matter to expand to equilibrium because the average energy density of the universe is too high to allow expansion to continue until the equilibrium state is achieved. The high average energy density of the greater universe assures the eventual merging and mingling of galactic remnants formed in separate arenas during expansion from the dense state. So dense state energy expands, matter forms and exists until it is captured in the core of a subsequent big crunch.
To the point, matter always forms during the declining energy density of the dense state. When matter forms, the energy density is so high still that the first matter to form is so close together that the gravity that begins when mass forms is strong enough to make adjacent initial energy quanta to have individual momentum relative to every adjacent quanta.
The quanta are not fixed particles but are convergences of high energy density spots within the expanding dense state energy. The spot is very temporary and very instantaneous but there is momentum created during the instant that the high density spot exists. The momentum causes the energy that occupied the temporary instantaneous high density spot to move toward its nearest adjacent neighboring quanta which is just as instantaneous and temporary.
The two patches of energy from the high density spots have themselves expanded and where they overlap a new high density spot forms in the space that was between them when they were individual high density spots.
The new spot has some energy from each of the former spots and the focus of the new high density spot is between the two former spots. This process is called quantum action.
Quantum action typifies the entire energy environment as the energy from the dense state emerges from the big crunch. Quanta clump together, form new quanta, and the individual quanta always stay in quantum increments but group into swirling masses of individual quanta that begin working together as a particle. Particles interact as a result of their own gravity and momentum and move in patterned ways relative to each other. Charge develops from the relative motion as energy differentials grow to physical limits determined by the amount of space available and the momentum and synchronization of the particles as they form. Formed particles lock in their own space and become stable.
Expansion is rapid at this time because of the huge simultaneous release of the potential energy forced into the dense state inside the big crunch. The clumping slows as particles lock in their own space but gravity still overcomes expansion and clumping of particles continues throughout the formation of stars and galaxies. Finally expansion over rules gravity and the galaxies all move away from each other as they move toward their future rendezvous in the greater universe.
I hope you can get a glimpse of how things would progress as matter forms from energy released in its dense state from a big crunch because I have already taken up too much space in your thread for one post.
[color=navy]
Taught you a few lessons in the Religions forum, didn't I?
Like these gems?
Long Life Spans: “Adam Lived 930 Years and Then He Died”
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53982
101 CLEARED UP "Contradictions" in the Bible = Paradoxes
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46099
Then we'll be able to settle the issue of ignorance.
If you insist.
Yet, I believe that the theory is that "space" itself is expanding, not just the matter within it. So this implies that "space" is something.....
Not necessarily. Space is simply the distance between objects, hence the distance between objects is expanding. The only "something" would be the objects themselves and not the space between them.
Not necessarily. Space is simply the distance between objects, hence the distance between objects is expanding. The only "something" would be the objects themselves and not the space between them.
Well, actually, there is no such thing as empty space, so space has something to.
Well, actually, there is no such thing as empty space, so space has something to.
Agreed. I'm not arguing space cannot contain things, simply that those things are not encapsulated within the definition of space.
I know, but every square measurement of space has something. Even if it is not visible.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
09-28-08, 12:49 PM
Aaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhh
Aaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhh
What's wrong?
Did your joint release a bomber?:D
EmptyForceOfChi
09-28-08, 06:59 PM
Wow, you guys are having trouble with this, it's not that hard of a question, atleast move past the simple Daoist concepts of what space is.
Something does not have to be a gas/liquid/solid or have energy mass to exist in this universe, our universe is mostly made up of space it is the key foundation that supports everything in existence. It is not so mind boggling once you give it alot of thought, if you hve an empty fish tank space is whats inside, fill that tank with water and you still have as much space in the tank only it is physicaly occupied on that dimentional level now it is full.
Space is the actual fabric of our universe, it is what makes everything possible. I did not realise space confused so many people.
peace.
superluminal
09-28-08, 07:02 PM
Wow, you guys are having trouble with this, it's not that hard of a question, atleast move past the simple Daoist concepts of what space is.
Something does not have to be a gas/liquid/solid or have energy mass to exist in this universe, our universe is mostly made up of space it is the key foundation that supports everything in existence. It is not so mind boggling once you give it alot of thought, if you hve an empty fish tank space is whats inside, fill that tank with water and you still have as much space in the tank only it is physicaly occupied on that dimentional level now it is full.
Space is the actual fabric of our universe, it is what makes everything possible. I did not realise space confused so many people.
peace.
This was not helpful in the least.
EmptyForceOfChi
09-28-08, 07:11 PM
This was not helpful in the least.
But whats the confusion?,
Space is the universes framework, like the canvas underneath a painting but 4d and without a what we call "normal" physical make-up. It is the actual universe itself.
What is everybody not understanding about it exactly?. Is it because it seems to be non physical tha we cannot understand how it was created or came about?. I think space is the one thing that has always existed, not effected by change or time.
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi
09-28-08, 07:17 PM
"Nothing" is an abstract, it does not exist.
peace.
Vkothii
09-28-08, 07:21 PM
How can something that doesn't exist contain anything? Space 'contains' matter and energy (cosmology 101); it expands. How does a container that expands, not exist at the same time? (cosmology 102)
Or you mean: "nothing does not exist"? That's not very insightful, as mentioned...
EmptyForceOfChi
09-28-08, 07:26 PM
How can something that doesn't exist contain anything? Space 'contains' matter and energy (cosmology 101); it expands. How does a container that expands, not exist at the same time? (cosmology 102)
Or you mean: "nothing does not exist"? That's not very insightful, as mentioned...
I am saying space is something, correcting people who are saying space is not a "thing", ofcourse it exists. I was also saying "nothing" does not exist hence it's name 'No-thing'. everything that exists is something therefore nothing is non existent and abstract.
pece.
Vkothii
09-28-08, 07:33 PM
Oh, right.
So we don't know what space is, if it 'moves' (but relative to what?);
all we can say is "it contains matter which is discrete, and in motion, relative to other matter, and energy which is why matter has relative motion".
Since we can see distant objects are all receding, then the relative motion must generally be expansive, not static.
Therefore the 'motion' of space itself is the expansion, the relative motion of space due to energy is equivalent to the relative motion of matter due to the same thing.
EmptyForceOfChi
09-28-08, 08:02 PM
Oh, right.
So we don't know what space is, if it 'moves' (but relative to what?);
all we can say is "it contains matter which is discrete, and in motion, relative to other matter, and energy which is why matter has relative motion".
Im not sure if using 'move' would be the best choice of words,
Since we can see distant objects are all receding, then the relative motion must generally be expansive, not static.
The objects could recede and universe expand without space having to actualy expand itself. If space was limitless matter could expand from a central point giving the impression of universal expansion. I see no reason why space itself has been shown to be expanding along with all matter in the universe.
Therefore the 'motion' of space itself is the expansion, the relative motion of space due to energy is equivalent to the relative motion of matter due to the same thing.
Why would space itself need to be included in the expnsion of the energy?, why can energy not be expanding on its own into free space which is already present?.
peace.
Like these gems?Ahhh, yes the Adam go... Just like that. But you're hardly featured in that except for the typical one-liners (something like bad acting). Laika did a good number there and is one of the few on the religions forum that seemed to know something. You shouldn't try to take credit for Laika's aptitude. Dig deeper, though, you might find something better.
Vkothii
09-28-08, 08:54 PM
The objects could recede and universe expand without space having to actualy expand itself.But space is part of the universe. Wouldn't objects stop receding eventually, if space didn't expand?
If space was limitless matter could expand from a central point giving the impression of universal expansion. In which case, where is the central point of expansion, which should stick out quite noticeably?
I see no reason why space itself has been shown to be expanding along with all matter in the universe.Maybe you don't understand the problem then.
Why would space itself need to be included in the expnsion of the energy?, why can energy not be expanding on its own into free space which is already present?.Space contains energy, and matter.
The matter and the energy is expanding away from itself - the matter/energy density is decreasing with time.
If there was a 'free' space before the expansion began, then the cosmos would have an apparent centre of expansion, but it doesn't.
superluminal
09-28-08, 09:17 PM
Exactly. This is the problem I have with the analogies that even scientists use to describe the BB to laymen.
It was not an explosion of spacetime in preexisting spacetime. It was an expansion of ALL (as far as we know) of spacetime from a very dense state.
I prefer imagining my POV within an arbitrary unit volume of an already infinite but incredibly dense universe at T = 0. Then the metrics of spacetime begin to "inflate", for whatever reason - everywhere - carrying every point within every unit volume away from every other point.
Vkothii
09-28-08, 09:33 PM
Here's where mass came from:
The prevailing theory holds that when the universe was born, the quantum field associated with the Higgs particle was everywhere zero.
Then, somewhere in the universe, a bubble developed, inside which the Higgs field assumed its current nonzero value. outside of the bubble, particles and antiparticles had no mass; once inside the bubble however, they interacted with the Higgs field to acquire mass.
But as the bubble grew, particles and antiparticles were swept through its surface at unequal rates because of CP-violation. Any imbalances between matter and antimatter were quickly corrected by processes that changed baryon number.
Such processes were extremely rare inside the bubble, however, so the imbalance was frozen in. By the time the bubble had expanded to occupy the entire universe, it contained more particles than antiparticles.
Unfortunately, ...theorists [can only calculate a much smaller imbalance,] too small--by orders of magnitude. This failure suggests there must be other ways in which CP-symmetry breaks down and hence that the Standard Model [is] incomplete.
--SciAm v13;1 2003 p65
Space is a bubble of Higgs potential.
superluminal
09-28-08, 09:36 PM
Sounds good to me.
Isn't the wall considered an object? :rolleyes:
Is that object A or B?
Space and time can move faster than light. It does not violate special relativity. That is why, when spacetime moved at superluminal speeds, it dragged matter with it, so that matter does not move faster than light itself.
That is an idea without evidence. Nothing known can move at FTL speeds.
It was not an explosion of spacetime in preexisting spacetime. It was an expansion of ALL (as far as we know) of spacetime from a very dense state.
A state far beyond the minimum limit for a black hole does not expand.
quantum wave. I still find it odd that you say that matter forms at low energy densities where I would think that they would form at high energy densities (so more of the building blocks of matter, so to speak). Could a powerful enough nuclear explosion form matter that was not there originally?
What's your take on ball lightning which seems to be a semi-stable form of energy?
Vkothii
09-29-08, 06:26 AM
Nothing known can move at FTL speeds.But we know there must be objects beyond the most distant we can see.
So they're traveling away from us at > c. They must be, or light would reach us (we would be in their light-cones).
A state far beyond the minimum limit for a black hole does not expand.It does (or it's possible) if it doesn't have any mass yet; see how it got mass in post 87 (the idea of mass being due to a field that pervaded the universe after massless particles evolved somehow), or don't you think the Higgs 'matters'?
Actually that's not a very good description of how the universe got massive; the Higgs field has always existed, but it had no value until after the very early cosmos had condensed into baryons. Then, as explained above, it was able to attain a nonzero value somewhere, and that spread through the whole show, like a growing bubble.
Isn't logic funny?
Stryder
09-29-08, 06:33 AM
Mass can occupy Space (That's space as opposed to Spacetime, Mass no my knowledge is made up of Spacetime, well technically "Energy".) Space obviously doesn't occupy anything it's just the remainder when you subtract from an area.
There is a rather interesting theory in how the universe came about.
Lets apply that the LHC is going to create a very small controllable collision, we know that the Big Bang was many multitudes the size of this incredibly Micro experiment in comparison. We can extrapolate for the Actual Big Bang to be created through this method, we'd require many Billions of LHC collisions. We can extrapolate that the sheer cost of one, implies that we as people on a Single Universe would never gain the Funding or Labour to build a universe that matches the size of our one (if not this one itself).
This is of course where the extrapolation for Multiple Universes is applied. If multiple universes could communicate with one another their findings, it's a potential to "double up" the research efforts while being paid the same amount.
Imagine say 5 universes, they all get paid $500,000.00 to do research. It would be possible to send a the same team of researchers off in 5 different research paths for the same price as one, if of course it was possible to communicate all the results between all 5 universes. There is a further theory in regards to FTL communication between such universes, where the results from the team on universe 1 could be given to universe 2 to revise [retrofit further] at the same time. This of course messes with an exponential curvature by suggesting research could just jump straight up.
It's not just the Funding and Labour that could be applied by this means, Lets say an LHC collision was created on each "parallel", however the sharing of data between each parallel universe allows the collisions to be coordinated. They could occur at the same point, at the same time but from different directions, or occur at different points at the same time from different directions etc.
Mathematically it implies that it would be possible to take a Cartesian frame of reference to the "space" where each universe is aiming and a kind of fractal could be developed to allow collisions to expand out from a central point. (Or take a reference point at a set distance from the centre point and "matrix" such collisions towards the centre generating a higher constitution of mass/collisions.)
Obviously it's something I've theorised in but it's incredible complex and difficult to just explain. The reason of course for me to attempt to explain it, is that mass subtracted from one universe and applied to a single other would generate multiple universes multiplying Space to itself. You couldn't do that with mass because it would break the "Laws of Thermodynamics".
But we know there must be objects beyond the most distant we can see.
So they're traveling away from us at > c. They must be, or light would reach us (we would be in their light-cones).
When we look up in the sky, we are looking back in time. If the CMB collapsed and vanished after a few hundred million years, we would not know it for a LONG time. Since light moves so "slowly", we cannot see much of the present day universe, whatever speed it is expanding at.
It does (or it's possible) if it doesn't have any mass yet; see how it got mass in post 87 (the idea of mass being due to a field that pervaded the universe after massless particles evolved somehow), or don't you think the Higgs 'matters'?
Actually that's not a very good description of how the universe got massive; the Higgs field has always existed, but it had no value until after the very early cosmos had condensed into baryons. Then, as explained above, it was able to attain a nonzero value somewhere, and that spread through the whole show, like a growing bubble.
Isn't logic funny?
If you can show me that Higg's bosons exist, they matter. No one has found any evidence for them at present and followers of the HB are a bit like JW's talking of the end of the world, coming up with ever new values as old ones prove false.
quantum_wave
09-29-08, 08:45 AM
quantum wave. I still find it odd that you say that matter forms at low energy densities where I would think that they would form at high energy densities (so more of the building blocks of matter, so to speak). Could a powerful enough nuclear explosion form matter that was not there originally?
...
... IMHO ...
Mass that goes into a big crunch is converted to the "dense" state of energy, i.e. too dense to be considered mass because mass/gravity doesn't work in the dense state. Gravity fails and the big crunch subsequently fails, releasing energy in its dense state, compressed to the maximum energy density possible at the moment of release.
...
Matter always forms from energy that has been compressed into the dense state. Matter does not form from energy that has expanded to the equilibrium state of energy (de Sitter space if you think in those terms). ...
I was suggesting in the above post that matter forms as the energy density declines from the "dense" state, not at the low energy density.What's your take on ball lightning which seems to be a semi-stable form of energy?I would say it was charged atmospheric conditions, but the phenomenon of ball lightening is far removed from the energy conditions that surround the formation of mass during the early expansion period as I'm sure you agree.
I know, but every square measurement of space has something. Even if it is not visible.
Huh? What are you talking about? :shrug:
Is that object A or B?
Take your choice.
Take your choice.
It's neither A nor B.
Huh? What are you talking about? :shrug:
The Planck Space is a square measurement, that is really the smallest space we can mathematically deal with. At this level, spacetime is bubbling with matter and energy.
That is an idea without evidence. Nothing known can move at FTL speeds.
The observable universe is seen to move away at speeds faster than light.
It's a known fact.
Vkothii
09-29-08, 03:46 PM
The observable universe is seen to move away at speeds faster than light.
Um, that's a bit inaccurate. If something is moving away at speeds faster than light, we can't observe it, since no light ever gets to us.
It's "known" because we can't assume there are no objects further away than the most distant we see.
I think that's the postulate, at least.
superluminal
09-29-08, 08:57 PM
Um, that's a bit inaccurate. If something is moving away at speeds faster than light, we can't observe it, since no light ever gets to us.
It's "known" because we can't assume there are no objects further away than the most distant we see.
I think that's the postulate, at least.
Yes.
Since we assume that we are not uniquely situated at the center of the universe, we also assume then that there is a distribution of matter that extends beyond our "hubble horizon". Our hubble horizon is defined by the distance at which objects are receeding from us faster than the speed of light. At this point, they still emit photons but the expansion of space FTL also redshifts this light ultimately to undetectability.
superluminal
09-29-08, 09:01 PM
That is an idea without evidence. Nothing known can move at FTL speeds.
This can be safely ignored.
kaneda, like many others here, thinks he is the first to have stumbled on the horrible, glaring, blatant, stupidly foolish mistakes of generations of conspiratorial, blind, dogmatic scientists and philosophers.
It's neither A nor B.
Then make it C. What's your point?
The Planck Space is a square measurement, that is really the smallest space we can mathematically deal with. At this level, spacetime is bubbling with matter and energy.
So what? It does nothing to detract from the definition of space.
So what? It does nothing to detract from the definition of space.
Hold it for a second.
You asked me what i was talking about, when i said..
''I know, but every square measurement of space has something. Even if it is not visible''
So i replied, telling you about the Planck Space being square measurement, and it's at this level, spacetime is continuously bubbling with matter and energy.
How does this not describe spacetime... and where did i ever say it would detract some definition?
I was stating originally that there is no such this as empty space. That much i have proven to you all.
Spacetime is a physical sheet, and there is no true ''empty space.''
Then make it C. What's your point?
C wasn't in your definition.
Um, that's a bit inaccurate. If something is moving away at speeds faster than light, we can't observe it, since no light ever gets to us.
It's "known" because we can't assume there are no objects further away than the most distant we see.
I think that's the postulate, at least.I agree for the most part.
The expansion of the universe is evidenced by (among other things) observing the redshift of the light which reaches us across billions of km-s of space-time. The redshift is due to the light from the galaxy being stretched as it has to travel across greater distances as the light sources move away from Earth. The further out we look in an expanding spherical shell from Earth, the greater the redshift (and recession velocity) with respect to radius. With extrapolation, at some radius, depending on what the Hubble constant is, the speed of the receding sources become faster than light.
We should keep in mind that we look back in time when we look further. The furthest objects we see at some 13 billion light years distant, were at that distance, well... 13 billion years ago. The light we see just now, indicates that the object, 13Gya was moving away from us at speeds close to that of light. Now, that object is not 13 billion light years distant, it is at least (probably significantly more than) 26 billion light years distant. Naturally, then, if it didn't vanish beyond Hubble's horizon, or crash into God or something, it must be receding faster than light.
... but the expansion of space FTL also redshifts this light ultimately to undetectability.But would you really say the light is redshifted into undetectability, like radio or something? I think it's safer to say we just won't see it in any way or form because it's still travelling at c relative to Space.
There is nothing to space to move. Things in space may move.
To determine whether space is moving, 1 must understand what space is & isn't.I'd say that the motion of Space is evident as derived from Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. Mass curves the fabric of Space - the greater the mass density the greater the curvature. It was mathematically proven by Schwarzschild and has been shown to be the case through observations of eclipses and occultations. A (rotating) speeding mass will drag space(-time) with it in the direction of its (angular) momentum (frame dragging). This has been shown to be the case through experimental satellites (look up NASA GRACE or CHAMP if you're interested. If you're intrigued, see here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJK-4JB9GSH-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7773c9f6638ee3ee1d814f8100e06a50).). So I'd say, at least relative to the masses anchored within it, and a flat topography, Space does move - i.e. topography changes.
C wasn't in your definition.
Neither was A or B. Are you through?
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-02-08, 08:17 AM
Space is not curved or square or any shape.
Space is not fabric. There might be some "fabric???" in space.
Space does not move. Space does not expand or contract.
Space is not curved or square or any shape.
Space is not fabric. There might be some "fabric???" in space.
Space does not move. Space does not expand or contract.
I never said spacetime was square. I said the Planck Space was a square measurement.
Space is curved, in the presence of matter.
Space is expanding, due to the cosmological constant.
This can be safely ignored.
kaneda, like many others here, thinks he is the first to have stumbled on the horrible, glaring, blatant, stupidly foolish mistakes of generations of conspiratorial, blind, dogmatic scientists and philosophers.
Another empty statement from an empty head. Any fool can say something is wrong when they don't give a reason why.
Yes.
Since we assume that we are not uniquely situated at the center of the universe, we also assume then that there is a distribution of matter that extends beyond our "hubble horizon". Our hubble horizon is defined by the distance at which objects are receeding from us faster than the speed of light.
A long way of saying that the combined speed of two objects moving away from each other can exceed light speed.
At this point, they still emit photons but the expansion of space FTL also redshifts this light ultimately to undetectability.
Perhaps you would like to explain what space is before you can say it expands, and that it breaks the light barrier? If light could be redshifted sufficiently, it would go to the microwave part of the spectrum.
[color=navy]I'd say that the motion of Space is evident as derived from Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. Mass curves the fabric of Space - the greater the mass density the greater the curvature. It was mathematically proven by Schwarzschild and has been shown to be the case through observations of eclipses and occultations. A (rotating) speeding mass will drag space(-time) with it in the direction of its (angular) momentum (frame dragging).
Is this space being dragged or is it just the effect of gravity from a spinning source?
losfomoT
10-02-08, 05:08 PM
I'd say that the motion of Space is evident as derived from Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. Mass curves the fabric of Space - the greater the mass density the greater the curvature. It was mathematically proven by Schwarzschild and has been shown to be the case through observations of eclipses and occultations. A (rotating) speeding mass will drag space(-time) with it in the direction of its (angular) momentum (frame dragging). This has been shown to be the case through experimental satellites (look up NASA GRACE or CHAMP if you're interested. If you're intrigued, see here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJK-4JB9GSH-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7773c9f6638ee3ee1d814f8100e06a50).). So I'd say, at least relative to the masses anchored within it, and a flat topography, Space does move - i.e. topography changes.
In the context you are using, you should be calling it space-time, not space. I think the problem (and a very wide-spread problem it is) is that you and others assume space-time (or 'space') to be a physical thing like fabric. It is not. The terms 'space-time' and 'frame dragging' refer to mathematical models that we (people) have created to describe the forces that we see.
There is no physical 'fabric' called space that curves and expands... space is simply the distance between objects.
You can say that 'space is expanding' the same way you can say 'the distance between objects in the universe is increasing'
In the context you are using, you should be calling it space-time, not space.True, but the effect still shows up in space.There is no physical 'fabric' called space that curves and expands... space is simply the distance between objects.I prefer to see it as a kind of fabric or 3d matrix.
The Planck length is dictated by the smallest Black Hole Schwarzchild radius physical theory can deal with - otherwise singularities end up outside the event horizon, and all hell breaks loose. The quantum foam/action/activity... /whatever below the Planck length is largely thought to be evidenced by the Cassimir effect - place two objects close enough together and you may observe a deflection, attractive or repulsive based soley on the geometry of the bodies and their proximity (dictates the sum of the wavelengths of attractive vs repulsive potentials/'standing waves' that can form in the small space between). Van der Waal's forces between neutral molecules can also be thought of as manifestations of quantum foam interactions, I've heard. Intrigued? See here (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9901011/).
What that says to me is that space is by no means just a unit of measurement (distance) because activity appears to occur below the Planck minimum (like the singularity beyond the event horizon of a black hole). It is something (a constitution things). Saxion might agree.
You can say that 'space is expanding' the same way you can say 'the distance between objects in the universe is increasing'There's a difference between an object moving inSpace and an object moving with Space.
Consider a balloon with the earth as a green dot with a blue dot distance "a" away, followed by a white dot distance 2a away, and a red dot distance 4a away - all in one straight line. In one second blow the balloon up by a factor of 2 (a becomes 2a, 2a becomes 4a, 4a becomes 8a). The blue dot moved away at "a" units/s, the white dot moved away at 2a units/s and red at 4a units/s. How would it look from the white dot? Earth would have moved away at 2a units/s, blue at a units/s and red at 2a units/s. So, for proportional increase in recession velocity with increasing distance in all directions, you're left with the natural conclusion that - the expansion is isotropic (the same everywhere we look). That is what Hubble first observed, and what we observe today - the Hubble flow.
You have to realise why we assume it must be Space expanding. If it is really just the objects moving through Space, then if there is anything beyond Hubble's horizon, they will be moving faster than Einstein's speed limit ("in/through/relative to" Space). That would mean we need new Physics to explain those speeds, or we can say God slowed them down (we'd have to assume there's nothing beyond Hubble's horizon). :D Also, if we assume objects are moving out, and space is 'static' then how do we deal with the conservation of energy?
Is this space being dragged or is it just the effect of gravity from a spinning source?It is a gravitational effect of a spinning mass on space-time. It isn't equivalent to a tidal effect or a perturbation due to mass inhomogeneities. This is in Einstein's world, of course, where mass curves space. Drop the spinning heavy ball with quick-glue on the rubber sheet and the sheet, sinks, and starts to twist.
There might be some "fabric???" in space.If the glove that astronaut lost is still in orbit, yup, there's fabric up there alright.
losfomoT
10-03-08, 03:16 AM
You have to realise why we assume it must be Space expanding.
Who's 'we'?
If it is really just the objects moving through Space, then if there is anything beyond Hubble's horizon, they will be moving faster than Einstein's speed limit ("in/through/relative to" Space).
Actually it would be objects moving relative to other objects.. and yes, they do move faster than light due to the 'expansion of space'. This has already been mentioned in this thread.
That would mean we need new Physics to explain those speeds, or we can say God slowed them down. :D
No new physics is needed to explain this.
Also, if we assume objects are moving out, and space is 'static' then how do we deal with the conservation of energy? We'd have to assume there's nothing beyond Hubble's horizon.
Why?
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-03-08, 06:26 AM
Do you want to change the definition of space?
Actually it would be objects moving relative to other objects..You can say that 'space is expanding' the same way you can say 'the distance between objects in the universe is increasing'New Horizons is travelling towards the plutoids away from Earth but that doesn't mean space is expanding between it and the Earth. Are you suggesting we assume that space contracts when objects move together and expands when they move apart?No new physics is needed to explain this.To explain what, God? I agree, we have religion for that.Why?Otherwise the total energy content within that hypothetical universe would decrease with time, as galaxies move to the Hubble horizon and vanish (where it is assumed nothing exists beyond the horizon).
Vkothii
10-03-08, 09:29 PM
Otherwise the total energy content within that hypothetical universe would decrease with time, as galaxies move to the Hubble horizon and vanish (where it is assumed nothing exists beyond the horizon).Where you've assumed that "nothing exists beyond the horizon", unlike most cosmologists, then there is a problem conceptually with the decreasing density of matter and energy within the horizon (where we are, and can see that there are distant objects receding at nearly the speed of light).
If you simply assume that your assumption is incorrect (there is something beyond the visible horizon after all), the "problem" ceases to exist. Isn't logic a hoot?
losfomoT
10-04-08, 12:57 AM
New Horizons is travelling towards the plutoids away from Earth but that doesn't mean space is expanding between it and the Earth. Are you suggesting we assume that space contracts when objects move together and expands when they move apart?[/color]
If you would like to discuss the space between the Earth and 'New Horizons', then, if you'd like, you can say that the space is expanding... or you can say the distance is increasing. And I am not 'suggesting we assume' anything.
To explain what, God? I agree, we have religion for that.[/color]
You know what I meant.
Otherwise the total energy content within that hypothetical universe would decrease with time, as galaxies move to the Hubble horizon and vanish (where it is assumed nothing exists beyond the horizon).[/color]
You sure like to assume things. Who has ever said that nothing exists beyond the 'hubble horizon'?
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-04-08, 08:18 AM
OK. The definition of the word space is changed. It's now some material object. Now we need a word for what space meant.
Marft - The infinite 3D area in which all matter exists.
cosmictraveler
10-04-08, 08:34 AM
Space...the distance between two divorced people!;)
Where you've assumed that "nothing exists beyond the horizon", unlike most cosmologists, then there is a problem conceptually with the decreasing density of matter and energy within the horizon (where we are, and can see that there are distant objects receding at nearly the speed of light).
If you simply assume that your assumption is incorrect (there is something beyond the visible horizon after all), the "problem" ceases to exist. Isn't logic a hoot?That was exactly my point (post 119, last paragraph - I'll edit it to make it more clear). I was not arguing that it is the case, I was stating that if that were the case (nothing exists beyond the horizon), then a problem would exist with energy conservation.
Which followed from my suggestion that if it were not space expanding then the objects beyond the horizon would violate the universal speed limit by moving away from us faster than light, through space (and the only way to fix that is to say they stop accelerating or they disappear - just to point out how 'strange' it would be).
Which was all started by losfomoT stating in response to one of my posts that space is simply the distance between objects, because, IM2HIO - in my most humble and inexpert opinion - calling space "the distance between two objects" is simply too simplistic and leaves me spaced out.
You sure like to assume things. Who has ever said that nothing exists beyond the 'hubble horizon'?My post about having to assume nothing exists beyond the horizon to fix the problem of speed limits (not energy conservation) should be edited now. That should make it more clear.
Vkothii
10-04-08, 03:45 PM
Is space unitary?
Is it fractal?
Seth Lloyd, a professor at MIT says (and he knows a bit of math, I guess), that unitarity implies a linear (monotonic?) norm-preserving transform.
Does space expand geometrically (spherically)? We can't detect an overall phase difference, but we can detect a local one (more distant galaxies are moving away faster than closer galaxies). Relative to the local group, say.
P.S. Another way to say 'implies a norm-preserving linear transform(ation)' is: 'implies a (probabilistic) time-evolution'.
If the universe really is a computer, then it's also a quantum computer.
OilIsMastery
10-04-08, 07:49 PM
Space 'contains' matter and energy (cosmology 101); it expands.
How can the universe be expanding if the Earth is unchanging?
Vkothii
10-04-08, 08:40 PM
There's this gravity thing...
OilIsMastery
10-04-08, 08:52 PM
There's this gravity thing...
Gravity makes every part of the universe grow except the Earth?
Vkothii
10-05-08, 12:03 AM
Gravity keeps the earth together, and a lot of other things besides.
At large scales, objects are receding from each other.
That's high school science, dude.
OilIsMastery
10-05-08, 03:32 AM
Gravity keeps the earth together, and a lot of other things besides.
So if "gravity keeps the earth together, and a lot of other things besides", how come it doesn't "keep the universe together"? If gravity keeps the Earth from expanding, how come it doesn't keep the sun from expanding, or the galaxy from expanding, or the universe from expanding? And if gravity keeps planets from expanding, how is it possible for planetary embryos to grow in the presence of gravity?
Vkothii
10-05-08, 04:13 AM
The galaxy is expanding?
The universe expands because "that's what universes do".
When you use the word "grow" you think that means "expand", don't you?
losfomoT
10-05-08, 04:41 AM
My post about having to assume nothing exists beyond the horizon to fix the problem of speed limits (not energy conservation) should be edited now. That should make it more clear.
Alright... except there is no problem of speed limits in the case of the 'expansion of the universe'
The 'expansion of the universe' is special. That's right... special.
The idea is that space as in the distance between objects expands so they move apart, unless held together by local gravity. We have extremely remote objects held in our local cluster by gravity yet in the big bang idea, the whole universe was in the area of our solar system and continued expanding instead of becoming a black hole. Even a creationist could see that is wrong.
losfomoT
10-05-08, 04:58 AM
So if "gravity keeps the earth together, and a lot of other things besides", how come it doesn't "keep the universe together"? If gravity keeps the Earth from expanding, how come it doesn't keep the sun from expanding
It does.
or the galaxy from expanding
It does.
or the universe from expanding?
It doesn't because things are too far apart. Planets, planetary systems, and galaxies all have objects close enough for gravity to hold them together.
The universe is moving apart too fast for gravity to hold it together. Think 'escape velocity'.
And if gravity keeps planets from expanding, how is it possible for planetary embryos to grow in the presence of gravity?
I think you're getting mixed up a bit here.
The speed limit is light speed. The idea that areas of space can expand separately and so overcome it, is nonsense. The four physical dimensional hypersphere is the only way expansion can work but there is no evidence of a fourth physical dimension (or all the other dimensions that strings require). At present, a good part of cosmology is mythology. The people that demand evidence for anything different from the big bang IDEA cannot give evidence for what they claim is science.
MarcAC. If mass curves space, that suggests that space has an actual structure which can be deformed.
OilIsMastery
10-05-08, 05:57 AM
It does.
So the sun isn't growing?
losfomoT
10-05-08, 12:02 PM
So the sun isn't growing?
Not in any sense that has to do with the expansion of space.
Eventually, when it becomes a red giant, it will 'expand' significantly... but that has nothing to do with the expansion of space that we are talking about.
losfomoT
10-05-08, 12:11 PM
MarcAC. If mass curves space, that suggests that space has an actual structure which can be deformed.
Mass curves space in our mathematical model of space-time. The model works amazingly well to describe and predict things, but you are taking it too literally. Space is not a physical 'thing' that 'curves'.
I might agree, kaneda - what keeps science going is fresh and competing perspectives. Looking at it one way may help solve one part of a puzzle, while looking at the other way solves another part. Not wise to limit yourself to one perspective.
This is getting way above my head now... My yearly visit to this site has come to an end. I must get back to the real world...
We can argue about what space is and isn't til we die but it is still and will be what it is.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-06-08, 02:03 AM
Mass curves space in our mathematical model of space-time. The model works amazingly well to describe and predict things, but you are taking it too literally.
We can argue about what space is and isn't til we die but it is still and will be what it is.
Yeah, what's the matter with you, thinking words have definitions?
OilIsMastery
10-06-08, 02:15 AM
Eventually, when it becomes a red giant, it will 'expand' significantly... but that has nothing to do with the expansion of space that we are talking about.
You mean the sun is expanding and the universe is expanding? Heresy!!! We know for a fact that the Earth has remained a constant size for the past 4.5 billion years. I just checked my time machine and crystal ball: yup constant size....:crazy:
AlphaNumeric
10-06-08, 02:54 AM
The four physical dimensional hypersphere is the only way expansion can work but there is no evidence of a fourth physical dimension (or all the other dimensions that strings require). At present, a good part of cosmology is mythology.Strings and inflation are not synonymous. The notation of inflation predates string theory as a major physics model.
And I've explained why a hypersphere is not the only 4d shape which can be compatible with inflation, you never retorted (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84014&page=2).
You continue to lie, either because you don't, and almost certainly can't, understand.
You mean the sun is expanding and the universe is expanding? Heresy!!!He didn't say that. He said the Sun will eventually expand, once it can no longer burn any fuel. Look up what happens to main sequence stars. Yet another example of you failing to understand what people say and making no attempt to do otherwise. And there is evidence for the universe expanding.
You continue to lie, either because you don't, and almost certainly can't, understand.
You mean the sun is expanding and the universe is expanding? Heresy!!!He didn't say that. He said the Sun will eventually expand, once it can no longer burn any fuel. Look up what happens to main sequence stars. Yet another example of you failing to understand what people say and making no attempt to do otherwise. And there is evidence for the universe expanding.
You continue to lie, either because you don't, and almost certainly can't, understand.
What OIM is doing is in a sense worse than lying, and it isn't out of ignorance. He is extremely adroit at using red herrings, ad hominems, Ignoratio elenchii, affirmations of the consequent, denials of the antecedent, non sequiturs, ... You name the logical fallacy, and he knows how to use it. (He does a lot of lying too, but fortunately that isn't a sin because his god has given him a pass on lying and slandering when it promotes his god's faith.)
I used to link Oils is Mastery with Draqon. There are subtle connections.
TruthSeeker
10-08-08, 04:25 AM
What is space?
The universe fits in your hand.........
[color=navy]I might agree, kaneda - what keeps science going is fresh and competing perspectives. Looking at it one way may help solve one part of a puzzle, while looking at the other way solves another part. Not wise to limit yourself to one perspective.
Precisely. Cosmology in places edges into pure speculation and until we get something concrete, other ideas should not automatically be dismissed because they are different.
Mass curves space in our mathematical model of space-time. The model works amazingly well to describe and predict things, but you are taking it too literally. Space is not a physical 'thing' that 'curves'.
Right. When we talk of gravity holding us down on Earth, we don't talk of being in a gravity frame that holds us in place. I think it is more apt to think of gravity as a net, dragging things around, which is tied to rotation (since we don't have it in a north to south direction).
Strings and inflation are not synonymous. The notation of inflation predates string theory as a major physics model.
And I've explained why a hypersphere is not the only 4d shape which can be compatible with inflation, you never retorted (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84014&page=2).
You continue to lie, either because you don't, and almost certainly can't, understand.
He didn't say that. He said the Sun will eventually expand, once it can no longer burn any fuel. Look up what happens to main sequence stars. Yet another example of you failing to understand what people say and making no attempt to do otherwise. And there is evidence for the universe expanding.
You continue to lie, either because you don't, and almost certainly can't, understand.
I see your holiday never improved your PIG manners. To point out why YOU are lying, I showed that any shape but a sphere would leave major inconsistencies in the universe. Obviously it was too difficult for you to understand, which is your problem and not mine.
You mean the sun is expanding and the universe is expanding? Heresy!!!
Where did I say this, so unleashing a torrent of loony ranting from you, LiarNumeric? How many times did you fall on your head whilst on holiday? Double figures? Treble figures? I can't understand why since there is nothing in it, so you are not top heavy.
I suppose when someone is as ignorant as you prove to be, merely copying from science sites, what else can you do except rant about others, thinking everyone is against you?
losfomoT
10-08-08, 11:57 AM
other ideas should not automatically be dismissed because they are different.
That is not why they are dismissed and you know it.
Case in point:
I think it is more apt to think of gravity as a net, dragging things around, which is tied to rotation (since we don't have it in a north to south direction).
If this was different and made sense, then people might take it seriously. But to me this is meaningless dribble... what rotation are you talking about? The Earth's? What do you mean 'we don't have it in a north to south direction'? Does that mean we have it in an East to West direction? At least this time you put 'I think' in there instead of stating it as if it were fact like you regularly do.
People don't dismiss your ideas out of hand. They give you reasons why they are wrong or at least unlikely. The problem is that you ignore their input and put your "different" ideas forth as if they were mainstream science.
TruthSeeker
10-08-08, 11:59 AM
Precisely. Cosmology in places edges into pure speculation and until we get something concrete, other ideas should not automatically be dismissed because they are different.
Maybe cosmologists should take a closer look at other disciplines such as astrophysics, subatomic particle physics and quantum physics. It appears to me that they don't really communicate very much with each other. It's too fragmented!
They are fragmented. It didn't use to be like that.
TruthSeeker
10-08-08, 12:04 PM
They have become fragmented because they are way too complex for a single brain to understand! You need a team working together to do it. And that's quite a challenge considering the limitations not only of our communication processes but also the limitations of our languages' capacity to communicate the complexities of those disciplines!
AlphaNumeric
10-08-08, 12:24 PM
I see your holiday never improved your PIG manners. To point out why YOU are lying, I showed that any shape but a sphere would leave major inconsistencies in the universe. Obviously it was too difficult for you to understand, which is your problem and not mine.And where did you do that? You didn't even know there were other shapes which are compact in 4 dimensions! You admit there's no evidence for a hypersphere shaped universe because we don't see copies of galaxies on opposite sides of the sky and so there's no evidence the universe is a hypersphere.
Where did I say this, so unleashing a torrent of loony ranting from you, LiarNumeric? How many times did you fall on your head whilst on holiday? Double figures? Treble figures? I can't understand why since there is nothing in it, so you are not top heavy.
I suppose when someone is as ignorant as you prove to be, merely copying from science sites, what else can you do except rant about others, thinking everyone is against you?Nice example of you not even reading the thread. I quoted someone else but typed out the 'quote' tags myself and didn't put their name. Anyone reading the thread knows that I was referring to someone else.
Funny how you say I've got 'pig manners' and 'loony ranting' when you show exactly the same.
Still waiting for evidence I'm a mod on physorg or all I do is copy websites. Why are you unable to find a single place I've copied and pasted from? And why are you ignorant of mainstream physics if, in your own words, a 10 year old could find this stuff?
You admit you're inferior to a 10 year old. ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.