|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is "the fabric" of space-time? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Or maybe just pretty obscured.
People, how about reviewing message 1 and the other earliest part of the topic. Then make it clear how your message(s) connect up to the topic theme. If I don't see the connection, then I'm going to have to assume there's some sort of big smokescreen happening. Or something like that. Bottom line - This topic is in danger of being closed down. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypso Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
Well I'd like to take this time to thank the posters that answered the original question for giving it a go at what may seem like a simple topic on the surface but is more complex and less understood than it may seem.
I still feel a bit confused as to why some call this quantum field "nothing". Perhaps that is because it is nothing like anything else we know of? I feel that if a mass is affecting this quantum field, and that the field in turn affects mass sitting in it and energy propagating through it, then it must be something right? So far I'm picturing this quantum field, metric, space-time continuum, or whatever its called as something like an EM wave. Where you have this standing wave, and if you want you can modulate it (perturb it, send a gravity wave through it) and it will travel at the speed of light to affect other matter and energy within it. The difference of course being that the EM wave affects things electromagnetically and not gravitationally. Does this sound right? Make sense? Although I see a problem with it already that the quantum field does not contain any energy and the EM field does. But other than that does it make sense to think of it like that? Oh also I'd like to add that the way I see it, if it really were nothing, and I mean nothing at all, then why should any object affect another? For example I'm picturing a fictitious universe without this property, where it would seem to me one mass would not affect the other. There would be nothing to warp, so there would essentially be no gravity. Does this make sense? In our universe, the fabric of space-time that gives rise to gravity is something isn't it? Sure it may have no mass, no energy, no matter, but it does have some property to it which is being warped, and also propagates gravitational waves upon it, thereby perturbing everything in it. Yes? Edited by Calypso, : No reason given. Edited by Calypso, : changed something to make it clearer to understand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
admin, I am directly addressing what is the fabric of space-time, or at least what gives rise to it.
But that is where you're wrong. I can predict that the hammer will fall without any design needed whatsoever. No, I am right. Without gravity, the hammer doesn't fall to the ground. The specific information within the force of gravity is at play.
you take it and run with it and make all these outrageous claims. What outrageous claims? You admit the universe is fundamentally non-physical and yet behaves according to principles (informational design).
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't start running. What makes you think it contains specific order and information? Where did you get that from? Are you sure your not just making stuff up? The fact it can be described mathematically or at least to some extent shows there is order....Order is specific information that governs behaviour.
I learned in frickin' grade school that the majority of our desks was empty space. It was a pretty big deal. But really, its not. The same goes with this "fundamentally non-physical" emergence of energy/matter. But the desk has matter, energy and design. It exists physically because of those things. Here we have something completely non-physical. It has no mass, nor energy, and yet mass and energy are derived from it. If you don't think scientists don't think that is a mystery, you are not paying attention. How does energy and mass stem from non-physical realms or fields? Just saying it does is not an explanation on what the non-physical is. Moreover, the idea that physical things stem from non-physical states is doggone revolutionary whether you admit it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypso Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
Just saying it does is not an explanation on what the non-physical is. Moreover, the idea that physical things stem from non-physical states is doggone revolutionary whether you admit it or not. I agree it is revolutionary. Even if it weren't so, or few else agreed, it's still new to me so it's at least revolutionary to me. That is if it is even correct at all! I ask this because now what about dark energy? Isn't dark energy an intrinsic quality of space that gives rise to the expansion of the universe? Isn't dark energy the energy that pulls the universe apart, and isn't it pervasive throughout the universe? According to an article in wikipedia: "The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the "cost of having space": that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model)..." Couldn't this mean the fabric of space does indeed have energy? How do we know it doesn't have any energy? What makes it not possible for it to have energy? And wouldn't it be odd to be the only field we've seen to have no energy and yet propagate it throughout? Can a field with no energy even do so? Propagate energy through it? Edited by Calypso, : typo Edited by Calypso, : had to change something to make better sense
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Without gravity, the hammer doesn't fall to the ground. The specific information within the force of gravity is at play. You're butchering what it means to be information so you can conflate it with being designed There is no specific information within gravity. But whatever, I don't care to waste time on this anymore. Besides, I don't want to get Moosed...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4913 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
randman writes: How does energy and mass stem from non-physical realms or fields? I think what is causing the problem is the word 'physical'. Why is it that you think the field is not physical? Are you considering the properties of mass/energy to be what defines something as physical? From my (admittedly very limited) understanding of what cavediver said, there isn't really any such thing as mass/energy, but rather the nature of the field when viewed in a certain way appears to be mass/energy. This means that everything is the field, and the field is all there is. Now I would consider 'physical' (in the context of physics) to mean something which contributes to the nature of 'existence' (whatever that may be). If the field is the only thing that actually exists, and the field is reality as cavediver suggested, then I don't think there could be anything more physical than that. I also didn't get the impression that the field is 'nothing', but rather than the field is 'fundamental'. When people have responded to the question 'What is the field?' with the answer 'The field isn't anything' I don't think that meant that the field is 'nothing'. I think that meant that there isn't anything more fundamental than the field, its just the field. There are no building blocks in the way you can say that a nucleus is protons and neutrons, or a proton is different quarks etc. To the people who actually know what they're talking about here, is any of what I said accurate or is it all way off the mark?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
To the people who actually know what they're talking about here, is any of what I said accurate or is it all way off the mark? The former
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Duh! If the universe was infinite, it would not be 15 Billion years old.
One must place their preamble which universe they inhabit before debating it: an infinite or finite one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Duh! If the universe was infinite, it would not be 15 Billion years old. Why not? An open or flat (hence infinite neglecting topological compactifications) FRLW universe is no different to a closed (hence finite) FLRW universe from the perspective of age. Our Universe could be any of these three (with varying degrees of evidence), and all would have thei earliest point 13.7 billion years ago. You have obviously forgotten much of your graduate cosmology class...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I ask this because now what about dark energy? Isn't dark energy an intrinsic quality of space that gives rise to the expansion of the universe? Isn't dark energy the energy that pulls the universe apart, and isn't it pervasive throughout the universe? My understanding is that dark energy and dark matter are somehow related, but it's still fairly theoritical. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. On your comments on this "field" or perhaps "realm" is a good way to think about it being nothing, you are correct. It is something, but an immaterial something. From a layman's concept of energy, it certainly seems to have energy, but it's not physical energy, just the capacity to become physical energy. Most likely, it is spiritual (non-physical) energy. Scientists don't want to use the term "spiritual" but they cannot handwaive away the fact that this "field" is exactly what many religious traditions including the Bible suggest about reality, namely that the spiritual realm is real, integral to the universe, and gives rise to the physical world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
From my (admittedly very limited) understanding of what cavediver said, there isn't really any such thing as mass/energy I don't think the physics world are prepared to say that mass and energy don't exist. Is that what you are saying? I do think they don't exist in the way people previously thought, as some self-existing things. They are descriptions from a certain perspective, that is true, and that's exactly my point. They are derived properties. The real universe is not physical and to think of the universe as physical is in some respects an illusion. That doesn't mean working from that perspective doesn't yield good results, but what everything stems from is an immaterial state.
Now I would consider 'physical' (in the context of physics) to mean something which contributes to the nature of 'existence' Well, you can redefine physical if you want. Under that definition, God is a physical being.
If the field is the only thing that actually exists, and the field is reality as cavediver suggested, then I don't think there could be anything more physical than that. The problem is you are just changing the meaning of the term "physical." The reality is that the field is non-physical and immaterial, hence cavediver's admitting it is "nothing", though he's been conspicuously absent since then in explaining that more fully. Clearly, it is something, but it is nothing physical. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Couldn't this mean the fabric of space does indeed have energy? I agree. We need a broader definition of energy rather than saying no energy exists there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
randman writes: My understanding is that dark energy and dark matter are somehow related, but it's still fairly theoritical. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. This might describe the view of some cosmologists, but in the view of most they are separate and distinct concepts. While we've given them names, we do not yet know the nature of either. Dark energy is the name given to the driving force behind the accelerating expansion of the universe. Dark matter is the name given to the purported source of extra gravity that keeps rotating galaxies from flying apart. Proposals for the identity of dark matter are MACHOS (Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects) and WIMPS (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles). WIMPS seem to be the preferred alternative at present.
Most likely, it is spiritual (non-physical) energy. You might want to consider the advisability of applying the term non-physical to something so intensely physical that it is driving the entire universe toward oblivion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The reality is that the field is non-physical and immaterial Rubbish - these words don't even begin to apply. If anything, the fields are the only physical, material element of existence.
hence cavediver's admitting it is "nothing" and where exactly did I do this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
fallacycop writes: mass warps space We understand mass. What properties does space have capable of warping? Put another way, what are the properties of space which make it expandable and warpable? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024