Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 46 of 327 (458039)
02-26-2008 10:02 PM


Contact with the topic theme has been pretty rare
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Calypso, posted 02-27-2008 1:16 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Calypso
Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-05-2006


Message 47 of 327 (458060)
02-27-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Adminnemooseus
02-26-2008 10:02 PM


Re: Contact with the topic theme has been pretty rare
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-26-2008 10:02 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 327 (458065)
02-27-2008 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2008 3:08 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2008 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Calypso, posted 02-27-2008 2:53 AM randman has replied
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-27-2008 10:25 AM randman has not replied
 Message 51 by happy_atheist, posted 02-27-2008 3:10 PM randman has replied

  
Calypso
Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-05-2006


Message 49 of 327 (458066)
02-27-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
02-27-2008 2:23 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-27-2008 2:23 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 2:07 PM Calypso has not replied
 Message 57 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 2:17 PM Calypso has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 327 (458111)
02-27-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
02-27-2008 2:23 AM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-27-2008 2:23 AM randman has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 51 of 327 (458170)
02-27-2008 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
02-27-2008 2:23 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-27-2008 2:23 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2008 4:32 PM happy_atheist has not replied
 Message 56 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 2:14 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 52 of 327 (458190)
02-27-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by happy_atheist
02-27-2008 3:10 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by happy_atheist, posted 02-27-2008 3:10 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 53 of 327 (458241)
02-27-2008 10:03 PM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by cavediver, posted 02-28-2008 3:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 54 of 327 (458281)
02-28-2008 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by IamJoseph
02-27-2008 10:03 PM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by IamJoseph, posted 02-27-2008 10:03 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 55 of 327 (458670)
03-01-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Calypso
02-27-2008 2:53 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Calypso, posted 02-27-2008 2:53 AM Calypso has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 03-01-2008 2:48 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 327 (458671)
03-01-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by happy_atheist
02-27-2008 3:10 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by happy_atheist, posted 02-27-2008 3:10 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by cavediver, posted 03-01-2008 3:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 132 by happy_atheist, posted 03-05-2008 12:21 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 57 of 327 (458673)
03-01-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Calypso
02-27-2008 2:53 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Calypso, posted 02-27-2008 2:53 AM Calypso has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 58 of 327 (458678)
03-01-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
03-01-2008 2:07 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 2:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 6:11 PM Percy has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 59 of 327 (458681)
03-01-2008 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
03-01-2008 2:14 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 2:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 6:17 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 63 by randman, posted 03-01-2008 6:25 PM cavediver has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 327 (458691)
03-01-2008 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by fallacycop
02-25-2008 8:49 PM


Space Properties
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by fallacycop, posted 02-25-2008 8:49 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by fallacycop, posted 03-01-2008 6:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024