|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the Fabric of space made out of? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Science chooses between competing theories based on which best explains observations. In his reply to this message, Sylas mentioned expansion as a measured property of space. Does your model of space take expansion into account? Hi Percy. Thanks for the advice on the realplay. That doesn't make it work. I will try Razd's suggestions when I get time. My space model as per the great debate and subsequent has consistently been a boundless space concept. From what Sylas has posted, it appears that the difference is that the majority science view is that space is bounded with bounds, center, radius, et al, where metric applies. Before anything is introduced into his model, you still have these properties. In a boundless space model, however there could be no center, no bounds and no radius et al to meter. You would have nothing but space/area/nothing, with the only property as being existing area. My question in message 63 was on this model as stated. The only answers I got applied to what appears to be a bounded model where metrics would apply. It is only when things are introduced into my model of existing boundless space that metric could apply, applicable only to those things introduced into it. The problem with the majority science view is that their/your model has space which consists of bounded abstract metrics allegedly expanding, yet having no outside of to expand into, this having allegedly been going on for 15 billion or so years from the alleged singularity submicroscopic particle of space. I guess this is the reason Ned regards these aspects of science as nonsensical and why Faynman admits that he doesn't understand it (theory of electrodynamics) either. It appears we're at an impasse here and I'm not wanting to irritate anyone by repetition of my position, except to answer questions posed. I will continue to study and learn from you people and others, but until what you people claim makes sense, I'm not buying it, regardless of the math. I regard this the same as I regard the Bible. My faith in anything must be substantiated and must be both logical and sensible. I see an intelligently designed universe as substantiated, logical and sensible and going with that until shown something more substantial. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The problem with the majority science view is that their/your model has space which consists of bounded abstract metrics allegedly expanding, yet having no outside of to expand into, this having allegedly been going on for 15 billion or so years from the alleged singularity submicroscopic particle of space. If you have the set of all even numbers, that's an infinite set. It's infinitely large. If you put each number in the set on a yardstick, one inch apart, that yardstick would be infinite in both directions (positive and negative). Now, lets say that you decided to expand that set by adding the odd numbers, one by one. You keep the sequence of the numbers in order and you maintain the one-inch spacing. That means as you put in an odd number you have to push all the subsequent numbers down an inch. That means your yardstick is expanding, because you're inserting new length between each even number. The distance between any two numbers increases relative to the original distance between them - for instance, the distance between 1 and 100 grows more than the distance between 1 and 20 by the time you're done. So what do you have? A growing yardstick of infinite length. It doesn't need non-yardstick length to grow into, because its length isn't changing. (The set of all integers is known to be the same size of the set of even or odd numbers.) But it is, nonetheless, growing at each point. Just because something is infinite doesn't mean it can't grow. It grows without changing size. Your mistake is applying the common sense you developed on finite entities to infinite entities. It just works differently. (And it actually makes sense once you learn the rules.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
From what Sylas has posted, it appears that the difference is that the majority science view is that space is bounded with bounds, center, radius, et al, where metric applies. NO. Sheesh, buzsaw, try to keep up. If anything, the majority view is the space is infinite, but the real majority view is that we just don’t know whether space is finite or infinite. I have said this right from the start; it was how I got into these absurd discussions. It doesn't bother me what you do with your vague metaphysical preferences for infinite over finite. I have been concerned here simply with the matter of the geometry of space, because this is something we DO know. Modern physics associates a geometry with spacetime; not with the objects within spacetime. It does this without proposing any material fabric or composition of spacetime. Space is curved. It expands. These features of the geometry of spacetime are very solidly established. Whether it is finite or infinite; bounded or unbounded; that we don't know.
The problem with the majority science view is that their/your model has space which consists of bounded abstract metrics allegedly expanding, yet having no outside of to expand into, this having allegedly been going on for 15 billion or so years from the alleged singularity submicroscopic particle of space. I guess this is the reason Ned regards these aspects of science as nonsensical and why Faynman admits that he doesn't understand it (theory of electrodynamics) either. Several errors packed into this. First, there is the same old so-called problem of space needing something to expand into. This is not any kind of problem whatsoever. This is purely and simply a case of buzsaw being unable to shake some conventional assumptions about flat space. Expansion simply means that there are greater separations between things over time. You don't NEED anything to "expand into". This is one of the really fundamental things that needs to be comprehended. The only basis for thinking that you need to expand "into" something is sheer assertion. This is dressed up with phrases like: "It's logical" or "It's common sense". Sorry; but common sense is trumped by observed evidence, and logic is only a way of developing implications of your starting assumption. The assumption that expansion can only mean expansion into something is not "logic", but an assumption that turns out to be wrong. Second, the word "bounded" comes in here from nowhere. What makes you think the metrics are "bounded"? It certainly is not something I have ever said. The metrics for spacetime work just fine for an infinite universe. In fact, the simplest homogenous solutions for what we observe right now are for a spatially infinite universe. Third, you've got Feynman wrong. I've not listened to the lecture, but I've read some of his writings on this. The principles of expanding space and so on are quite understandable. It is quantum physics that Feynman singles out as something no-one understands. Here is a famous quote from Feynman (I cut and pasted from Light through the ages: Relativity and quantum era) My emphasis added.
Richard Feynman writes: There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve people understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. there might have been a time when only one person did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understand the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ... Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it "But how can it be like that?" because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. Quantum mechanics is really hard to visualize; but relativity is not. Relativity is still a classical theory; and you need to discard a few assumptions that are a barrier to buzsaw; but many physics students manage this just fine. A bit of reading, a bit of an open mind for new ideas, and even a total novice can develop a fair degree of understanding of relativity. Special relativity is easy; general relativity is harder, but still quite comprehensible. It is the general theory you need to understand curved spaces, and expanding spaces, and so on. Quantum mechanics and electrodynamics, however: fergeddaboutit.
I will continue to study and learn from you people and others, but until what you people claim makes sense, I'm not buying it, regardless of the math. That's okay, it's your choice... and your loss. You have mistaken "common sense" for the naive intuitions we form in the absence of rigourous consideration of all the evidence. Real learning means discarding those assumptions when they turn out to be wrong; and you'll HAVE to do this because the real world does not match your intuitions. It still makes good sense, however, and it is still understandable (if we omit the quantum domain); but alas you've chosen to rule yourself out of contention. Cheers -- Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-13-2005 07:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The problem with the majority science view is that their/your model has space which consists of bounded abstract metrics allegedly expanding, yet having no outside of to expand into, this having allegedly been going on for 15 billion or so years from the alleged singularity submicroscopic particle of space. I guess this is the reason Ned regards these aspects of science as nonsensical and why Faynman admits that he doesn't understand it (theory of electrodynamics) either. It is "nonsense" in that it doesn't follow common sense. It isn't "understandable" in that we don't have the underlying reasons for it. The analogy with the Mayan (I think it was) priests applies.
It appears we're at an impasse here and I'm not wanting to irritate anyone by repetition of my position, except to answer questions posed. I will continue to study and learn from you people and others, but until what you people claim makes sense, I'm not buying it, regardless of the math. I regard this the same as I regard the Bible. My faith in anything must be substantiated and must be both logical and sensible. I see an intelligently designed universe as substantiated, logical and sensible and going with that until shown something more substantial. It is nice that you want the universe to conform to your ideas of "sensible". Feynman recognizes that his audience wants that too. Most of us do; many physicists have struggled with it just as you do. The problem you have, Buz, is the universe is as described. It does not behave in what you think of as a "sensible" way. It doesn't care (so I guess your God doesn't either) what you think is the right way for it to work. The facts of it's properites and behaviour are as given. You don't like it? Take Feynmans advice and move to another universe this one is apparently not to your liking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the one you want to ask is Sidelined (or JonF)
he posted the link. see Message 88 I had trouble with lecture #2 over wifi (lost the signal three times, very frustrating) but finally got through it and am working on #3. There are also some books that make the modern physics more accessible, such as The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav (click for more info) and The Tao of Physics by FRITJOF CAPRA (click for more info) (these are both Amazon.com reviews of these books so you can get an idea about them. They should be available at a library and are a fairly easy (imho) read (and fun). we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: There are also some books that make the modern physics more accessible, such as The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav (click for more info) and The Tao of Physics by FRITJOF CAPRA (click for more info) (these are both Amazon.com reviews of these books so you can get an idea about them. They should be available at a library and are a fairly easy (imho) read (and fun). Sorry to be a wet blanket; but I recommend caution. These books may be fun; but they are not really good introductions to modern physics. They tend to get panned in review from people who are knowledgeable in physics, or experts in eastern philosophical thought. The best part of these books is their real potential to turn people on to the fun in physics; and that is a crucial first step. However, to make further progress there are things you'll have to unlearn from these books. It's been a long time since I read these. Actually, I only read TTOP; and glanced at DWLM. My comments are thus second hand. Apparently, "The Tao of Physics" was inspired to a great extent by the now almost defunct "bootstrap" model of particle physics proposed by Geoffery Chew, which has been pretty much replaced by the quark model. Physicists reviewing this book seem to vary from "total crap" to "good introduction but out of date". Many folks seem to think it is "preaching" a bit much; which is awkward since the progress of physics appears to have passed it by. I don't have a good alternative recommendation, as particle physics is not my thing. But there are a number of contenders that are much more up to date. The Dancing Wu Li Masters appears to be significantly worse. The author is a journalist, but the physics was apparently largely ghost written by maverick physicist Jack Sarfatti. Extreme caution advised. (By the way; maverick does not mean "wrong". But it does mean long shot; and it also means risky as a general introduction to physics.) My comments here should also be taken with caution; I've not looked into it in great detail. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hmmm. both were recommended to me by a physics grad student on another board. ah well.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
I have read The Dancing Wu Li Masters and enjoyed it enough to read it again. I think its worth a read to any layman interested in Physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
At the risk of bringing this thread off topic, if buz is looking to get a laymans physics book you can't go wrong with anything by John Gribbon or Paul Davies. Paul Davies' "About Time" is a good intro to General Relativity, although I don't think it will go into the details you desire. You have to start somewhere though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
It is nice that you want the universe to conform to your ideas of "sensible". Feynman recognizes that his audience wants that too. Most of us do; many physicists have struggled with it just as you do. The problem you have, Buz, is the universe is as described. It does not behave in what you think of as a "sensible" way. It doesn't care (so I guess your God doesn't either) what you think is the right way for it to work. The facts of it's properites and behaviour are as given. You don't like it? Take Feynmans advice and move to another universe this one is apparently not to your liking. It is the arrogancy of some of you as demonstrated in this post, Ned, that implicates you as the closed minded kind. You, Sylas and others, including Faynman, admit to the unknowns, but almost in the same breath debate as though you know it all as an open and shut case. We all have unknowns in our concepts. Some of our more significant unknowns aren't a bit more significant than some of yours, yet because the majority have been persuaded your way, you seem to act like yours is absolutely imperical and anyone else's has been totally and absolutely falsified. I don't think so. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Thanks Justin and others for the study advice. I don't have much time to read extensively and not a fast reader, but will do what I can.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
buzsaw writes: You, Sylas and others, including Faynman, admit to the unknowns, but almost in the same breath debate as though you know it all as an open and shut case. It might help if we stay focused on the specifics. Concerning the unknowns, the geometry of space isn't one of them. Like anything in science our theories may be wrong, but we have much evidence supporting our view of space. As Sylas has explained, most recently in Message 108 but also in numerous previous messages, your view of space has already been observationally falsified. Nosy is trying to make a different point, but one that is at the core of your problems with science. The universe is under no compulsion to conform to human standards of logic and common sense. We have to take it as it is. As Feynman says between minutes 20 and 26 in that first lecture, a lot of very bright people have worked very hard gathering the observations about the way the universe really is, and if it doesn't make sense to you and you reject the observations because they violate your sensibilities or your theological notions, then too bad for you, the observations still stand. You can try to fit them into a different theoretical framework, but you're obligated to account for them if your theory is going to be anything other than personal fancy. As Galileo is rumored to have muttered under his breath as he left the Inquisition, "But still, it moves," this of course about his view that the earth orbited the sun and not vice-versa. You can refuse to accept the nature of space all you like, but the universe doesn't care. Whether you accept it or not, the evidence strongly suggests that space is non-Euclidian and expanding into nothing. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, 03-14-2005 12:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
First, there is the same old so-called problem of space needing something to expand into. This is not any kind of problem whatsoever. This is purely and simply a case of buzsaw being unable to shake some conventional assumptions about flat space. Expansion simply means that there are greater separations between things over time. You don't NEED anything to "expand into". This is one of the really fundamental things that needs to be comprehended.
I agree that it is not nonsensical to state that space can expand without any need of something to expand into. IMHO, it WOULD be nonsensical to state that space WAS expanding into something. Ultimately space is what expanding objects expand "into" - while we might place bounds on the region of expansion by referring to some other factor (usually one which places a limit on the expansion) all expansion is an increase in volume and therefore the occupation of more space. But it would clearly be nonsensical to state that space was expanding into itself. I think Buzsaw's problem here is a failure to understand the implications of the fact that it is the expansion of space itself that is being discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: I agree that it is not nonsensical to state that space can expand without any need of something to expand into. I think a reasonable question for Buzz to address is the nature of the "something" that he believes space is expanding into. If space is like a fabric draped across some underlying foundation like a rug over a floor or a sheet over a couch, then what is the nature of that underlying foundation? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
It is the arrogancy of some of you as demonstrated in this post, Ned, that implicates you as the closed minded kind. You, Sylas and others, including Faynman, admit to the unknowns, but almost in the same breath debate as though you know it all as an open and shut case. What Sylas, and Ned, and Feynman, are pointing out is that it most definitely is an open and shut case that the universe fails to conform to your intuitions. That is as open and shut as anything ever gets in physics. Ned and Sylas and Feynman can admit to unknowns; but we also acknowledge other things that are known. Science does not learn everything in one fell swoop; but we do learn some things. It is this latter bit that you don't seem able to accept... and this comes across as arrogant as well, not that it matters much. Sometimes what we know violently conflicts with normal intuition. Quantum physics is a case in point. This does not mean we fail to know. It means we fail to intuit. There is a difference. We know the models, and we know how to apply them and we know they work; but trying to get a mental picture of it all is just about impossible. This is what Feynam means by "no-one understands quantum mechanics". But as Sylas, and Ned, and Feynman all point out, relativity is much easier. This is the bit you have been rejecting; but it is as solidly known as we get in science. Calling this "arrogance" has become for you a means of avoidance. It would be wrong for Ned or Sylas or Feynam to pretend that such basic discoveries as geometry for spacetime are somehow dubious or unknown or not understood.
...We all have unknowns in our concepts. Some of our more significant unknowns aren't a bit more significant than some of yours, yet because the majority have been persuaded your way, you seem to act like yours is absolutely imperical and anyone else's has been totally and absolutely falsified. I don't think so. Your ideas HAVE been totally falsified. Not the infinite space part; that remains plausible. You seem to have everything else wrong; and you seem to think it arrogant when people dismiss your intuitions and common sense as irrelevant for dealing with real physics. We aren't claiming to know everything. Some things (like curvature and expansion of space) are most definitely empirically verified as basic factual discoveries; and the various alternatives (tired light, scattering) have been totally falsified by empirical evidence I have pointed out already in the thread. Cheers -- Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-14-2005 05:05 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024