What created space-time?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,822
    ^^^
    Maybe. It could be a small part of the multiverse. IF that is ever proven, we would need to think of a new name for our "universe" because then the word universe would apply to all of it.
    Or our universe could be a small part of 1 much greater universe.
    If either of those are valid, we might or might not discover it someday. If our universe is all there is, we will probably never know for certain.

    <>
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    From that link: "He found that his galactic redshifts took on only certain discrete values instead of being randomly distributed." Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization#Modern_discourse for a more up-to-date discussion of that subject. So at least a significant part of that "redshift has been debunked" has been debunked itself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    River. I'm familiar with it now. But you're the one claiming that it should be respected. The burden of proof is on you to make the case. Telling someone, "go research it yourself" is a cowardly tactic and it's shifting the burden.
     
    exchemist and Boris2 like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,822
    ^^^
    I often explain currently accepted theories & alternate theories as swell as many issues unrelated to science & sometimes I get tired of explaining things over&over that people can find on the internet. Of course, it is often good to explain things but it is often good for the other person to look it up.
    Not meaning to speak for river or anyone else.

    <>
     
  8. RADII Registered Member

    Messages:
    75
    As one who's been around since the early days of the 'Net, I both admire & curse what we built. Web 2.0 [the 'Participative' or 'Contributive' Web] enabled scads of real experts to share their knowledge & wisdom without being dependent upon a sponsor or third-party conduit (think .edu site) to be a vector to publication. However, it likewise enable scads of 'real' experts to publish volumes of sheer nonsense. Now, with Web 3.0 [the Semantic Web] we, as consumers, are dependent upon our analytical & logical skills to separate the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, there are a lot of consumers out there who either do not possess the intellectual resources to do so, or (quite consciously) refuse to do so...
     
  9. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,094
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    I appreciate your response .

    Not only explaining , but answering questions , upon....

    To the post # 23 suggesting a " cowardly tactic " , it is a shame that learning about something , has become a " tactic " . And cowardly to boot .

    We....We....We .... are becoming .....numbed to knowledge that can lead to a better understanding of anything .
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  11. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    What created space-time is mathematics .

    Space is real . For any something capable of manifesting , it needs ROOM , or space , to manifest INto.

    Time is not real . In our everyday lives , time matters , obviously . But time in the big picture of the Universe , time matters not .
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Time is important to those who have a limited life
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Sure

    But don't make time as a force , in and of itself .
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,286
    Very true.

    ....And too valuable to waste researching sh1t on the internet like electric universe theories and ballocks from nutters like Velikovsky.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    Mathematics certainly created some of the concepts that are used to describe space-time. However, saying that something abstract created something real is nonsensical.

    In the big picture of the Universe, time actually matters a lot. Let's look at the entire universe to date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg What's that on the horizontal axis? Oh yes, it's "time"! Quite important, wouldn't you say?
    I think you are specifically talking about human-scale time intervals, which indeed have very little impact on the big picture of the Universe.
     
  16. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,213
  17. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Not sure what exactly it is that you are saying?
    I was taught that "Spacetime" is an abstract - a model - a construct.
    Space is REAL. It actually PHYSICALLY EXISTS.
    But "Spacetime"...not actually REAL as in a PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

    Even wiki gets it right : "In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur."
    -from (and more at Link) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

    So...river is somewhat roundabout mostly correct in stating : "What created space-time is mathematics ."
    At least as far as what I was taught at University.

    A few more Links to peruse, if you are interested :
    - : https://www.quora.com/Is-spacetime-an-Einsteinian-abstraction-or-a-physical-entity
    - : http://www.dictionary.com/browse/space-time
    - : https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time
    - : https://futurism.com/understanding-space-time-spacetime/
     
  18. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    225
    Not really: in physics the variable associated with it is called "time". But even if you called it the "age of the universe", it's a measurement of how much time has passed, so it's the same thing.

    And from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
    "Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime."
    So spacetime is as real as space is.

    Your first link opens by stating that both space and spacetime are mathematical constructs, so it suggests you were taught wrong. Your second link doesn't say it explicitly, but because it puts all physical objects inside spacetime in the first definition, it can't be abstract (how do you place real things in an abstract thing?). Your third link doesn't say anything explicitly, but it treats space, time, and spacetime as similar type objects, so if one's abstract, all three are. Your forth link opens by writing that both space and time are concepts, which you think doesn't equate to "REAL".

    I should have been more careful in my wording. I was specifically addressing river's statement in the context of his/her post. Let me start over...
    Space-time is as much a creation of mathematics as space is. Mathematics may describe how space-time operates, but it is experiments (i.e. reality) that strongly suggest that space-time is a good description of reality. In that sense space-time is real, and at least as real as space can be (or time, for that matter).
    If you go down the path that the model/concept isn't real, then neither is space, temperature, or even gravity (it's only a model, right?). Or even wind: that's only an abstraction. Heck, if we go a bit further and follow the Hume/Kantian way, I could claim everything we can experience is abstract, since it's just a model our brain forms based on data from our senses.
    So perhaps it's better to use the word "real" a bit more pragmatic, and call space, time, and space-time real?
     
  19. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,213
    Astrophysics uses spatial concepts of time curvature and spacetime curvature in
    order to denote the inverse of time and the inverse of spacetime; this attempt to
    spatialize time and spacetime says the same thing, but otherwise teaches us nothing, merely worsening the confusion between time and space
    ***
    The lack of physical parameters in the vacuum, prevents one from defining
    concepts of space, time, and spacetime. Therefore an empty space has no physical
    properties: this is the prognosis of the physical non-existence of space as such. The induction rule allows one to demonstrate that space stricto sensu is a pure concept, a mathematical object.
    NO PARAMETER = NO PHYSICAL EXISTENCE
    ***
    Chapter 8
    Mathematical Properties of Time and Space

    Abstract

    Theoretical mathematics does not know time and physical space; but given that time and space are both involved in many mathematical models of physics, it is interesting to test them in the main fields of physics, to identify their mathematical properties. The definitions and properties of these two concepts depend to a large extent on the area of physics one is considering: in classical physics, time and space are determinist and invariant; in statistical physics, time and space are probabilistic and invariant; in relativity, time and space are relativistic, covariant, and downgraded mere components of relativistic spacetime; in quantum
    physics, time and space are probabilistic and invariant. The result is that time and
    space are polymorphous. In addition to this collapse of the idea of the absolute,
    neither time nor space can be subjected to experiments, and that includes relativistic
    experiments. This confirms that no concept can be subjected to physical experiment. This is a further indicator of the non-existence of time and space.
    The properties are identified by observing the behaviour of time and space in the
    main areas of physics: classical, statistical, relativistic, quantum, and quantum
    relativistic

    The three extracts are from

    The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville

    These extracts are not the most complicated parts of the book and I admit Huey Dewey and Louie have trouble with these sections. There are less parts much easier to follow. I focus more on the existence of TIME. If I get around to reading the book again I will pay more attention to spacetime sections

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Sorry, my condolences.
     
  21. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,822
    Space - dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
    area in which things are located.

    <>
     
  22. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    True

    And which allows for the manifestation of anything .
     
  23. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,822
    ^^^
    I am not certain what you mean but space does not allow or disallow anything. It is simply the area in which things exist.

    <>
     

Share This Page