The infinite space of the Universe

Thanks for answering my question, Ned. I should have done some reading before asking.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

Could you explain how a photon could or would have a very limited lifespan. They appear to be the most traveled identified thing in the universe and probably of greatest quantity.

---

The atom itself has a limited life span, so does the electron. A photon is seen as a quantumn particle of light; that it is also massless and ageless, says this particle was suitable to be light contained/light contained, probably because of its unique state when heated - because matter particles do not of themselves have these traits of becoming massless, but they instead disipitate or become gaseous or another state or another molescule, eg. H2O. That light has no mass, means it is not mass; only a mass-less particle can be ageless, because it is not effected by mass drag.That a photon is not light but a component in all radiation:

quote:

---

The origin of the word "photon"

​

"I therefore take the liberty of proposing for this hypothetical new atom, which is not light but plays an essential part in every process of radiation, the name photon."

​

-Gilbert N. Lewis, 1926

---

That photons are not light itself, but an additive energy input exciter ['Lewis did not consider photons as light or radiant energy but as "the carrier of radiant energy."]:

quote:

---

photon n. Physics. The quantum of electromagnetic energy, generally regarded as a discrete particle (see) having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. [PHOT(O)- + -ON] --ph'ton'ic adj.

​

-American Heritage Dictionary

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Although Planck and Einstein advanced the concept of quanta, Einstein did not use the word photon in his early writings and as far as my reading goes, he never did. The word "photon" originated from Gilbert N. Lewis years after Einstein's photoelectric paper and appeared in a letter to the editor of Nature magazine (Vol. 118, Part 2, December 18, 1926, page 874-875).

​

Interestingly, Lewis did not consider photons as light or radiant energy but as "the carrier of radiant energy." To this day, physicists describe the photon the carrier of the electromagnetic force. This verbage of "carrier" and "radiation" imparts a dualistic nature to the subject which, curiously, rarely gets mentioned in scientific articles.

---

That the photon travels from atom [particle] to particle, with energy transfer, thereby incurring loss of energy at each transfer, until when the energy is depleted, making the light essence not vision-friendly anymore. Thus the energy additive [heat] makes light vision friendly by excitation [as in a wood log glowing when heated by fire]. We know that changes of states result in energy loss and there is no free energy or ever-lasting energy.

quote:

---

The Conservation of Photons.

​

WHATEVER view is held regarding the nature of light, it must now be admitted that the process whereby an atom loses radiant energy, and another near or distant atom receives the same energy, is characterised by a remarkable abruptness and singleness. We are reminded of the process in which a molecule loses or gains a whole atom or a whole electron but never a fraction of one or the other. When the genius of Planck brought him to the first formulation of the quantum theory, a new kind of atomicity was suggested, and thus Einstein was led to the idea of a light quanta which has proved so fertile. Indeed, we now have ample evidence that radiant energy (at least in the case of high frequencies) may be regarded as travelling in discrete units, each of which passes over a definite path in accordance with mechanical laws.

---

quote:

---

Please explain a "pre-star light" as this is a new term I've never heard.

---

Light is produced by a star, but this does not mean light was created by the star. The star could not produce light if it was not already an existent entity, and light can exist outside of a star [as in a torch]. The stars perform an [atomic] action which is condusive to the production of light, which can be emulated elsewhere also. Not all stars produce light, or, they have to undergo a embryotic period before they become light producing adult stars. Luminosity and light are seperate phenomenons, and since light is an independent intity from the stars, it predates the stars, and is a primodial factor in the universe. Luminosity is derived via excitation, mostly via heat generation.

quote:

---

I suggest that photons may be the oldest remnants from the history of the universe originating before atomic structures formed.

---

IMHO, luminosity occured at a later stage in the universe emergence, and photons are connected with luminosity. We know this because a star does not give out light till a later stage of its development. We find that a photo reveals its image with another action, but that image was imprinted earlier, but it was not vision friendly. This is a similar process concerning photons.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

It is not just points of view Buz. Do you know how unbelievably accurate the predictions of General Realativity are?
No other theory even makes any such predictions never mind matches the accuracy of those made by GR. Whatever these other mysterious theories that you speak of are they are indisputably and woefully inferior to GR by any objective measure. Only your philosophical bias regarding this matter stops you seeing this. The fact I cannot truly comprehend, and you seem incapable of even attempting to comprehend, curved 4 dimensional spacetime is neither here nor there. You are also still completely confusing the "bending" of the bar with the curvature of spacetime. The bar is not "bent". The structure of the atoms that make up the bar remain unaffected. The two sides of the bar remain the same length. The bar is in no way bent in the superman bending bars of steel sort of way that you are imagining. No force is distorting the material of the bar. The bar is straight by any measure you can make.If we limit science and modern phyisics in particular to that which meets common sense then the whole of quantum theory and the whole of relativity get thrown out. In fact there is a large part of classical physics that would probably get thrown out too (e.g. Newtons first law) Don't confuse logic and common sense. They are not the same thing.
Science is logical but science often provides results that are contrary to common sense. The only theory here that is violating observed reality is, I am afraid, your own.As for time differential air resistance comment........well others have picked up on this and put you straight on this matter.
I seriously suggest that you research the phenomenon that you need to explain, the predictions that you need to be able to make and the level of evidence that you are up against if you are going to persist in pushing your already refuted static simple common sense universe model in opposition to scientifically verified principle of cosmology.
At the moment it is clear that beyond a simple "well this is how it looks to me and my bible agrees" you don't really have any evidence in your favour at all.

....And you people are all still being completely illogical, nonsensible and observationally unrealistic in insisting that the two ends of an unbent rigid steel bar, the atoms of it remaining unaffected, the two (actually four) sides of the bar remaining the same length will go full circle to reconnect the two ends of it.ABE: You all have yet to state what properties of space, be it curved or static space, are capable of making such a bar go full circle to reconnect it's two ends. The only way that's going to happen is on paper, on your screen or in your minds. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add statement

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Are you alleging that there are clocks having no mechanism?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

For all the wrong reassons you are absolutely right.
Apart from the obvious fact that no such steel bar exists or could be constructed there is the small matter of the universe expanding. As I understand it we would need to be expanding our steel bar at faster than the speed of light to deal with this if we are to enevelope the entire universe.Anyway. Whatever the overall topology of the universe your denial of any curvature of spacetime is a baseless assertion that simply flies in the face of all the evidence. You still have not even atempted to address the stunningly accurate predictions of GR and your claim that these are somehow wrong despite the fact that everyday technologies rely on these very predictions.I don't really understand why you are so adamantly against the idea of curved spacetime? Why exactly are you so sure that it is wrong?The only difference between you and those who once said - "Look around you. The Earth is flat any fool can see this. How can it be a sphere when everything would fall off the bottom" - is that we cannot just stick you on a boat for a few months to demonstrate just how wrong you are.Nature doesn't always work as common sense would suggest. Nor does it pay any attention to our philosophical and religious prejudices. Deal with it.

I have yet to understand what properties space has to effect curvature. I see forces and matter (not space) as effecting everything that occurs which is observed.I must continually remind that the only properties of space is existing infinite unboundless static area in which all things exist.. The universe, void of all matter, forces, etc would consist only of existing unbounded infinite static space/area.Outside of the area of space where matter, forces, etc exist this is what the rest of the universe consists of; more infinite space/area into which the present matter and forces could expand if expansion of these happens or continues. Edited by Buzsaw, : fix statementEdited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Is that it? Your lack of understanding leads to denial regardless of all the evidence and practical application that oppose your view? What else do you not understand? (rhetorical question, no need for a list ) But Buz do you really understand forces and matter? It seems that fields are ultimately the thing to understand if you really want to get your head round any of this stuff. Ultimately all we observe is the result of fields. Remind us? Are you an authority on the subject? How do you know this such that we should take your reminders at all seriously? Static? Unboundless? Where do you get this stuff from? Again how do you know this? Apart from anything else the spontaneous creation and annhilation of matter via quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space would seem to contradict your view of what empty space is. Outside? Are you saying space expanding into space? How on Earth could this happen? Do we end up with overlapping space? Is there time in this "outside space" as well?Buz - You look around your limited little speck of the cosmos with your imperfect perception and your inability to comprehend and think you can work out the nature of the universe by common sense alone. Emptiness remains empty unless filled. Time always ticks away at a universally constant rate no matter what. Space is 3 dimensional and simple with no distortion or curvature. Straightness is a concept somehow independent of space. Forces are simple push pulls acting on matter that is conceptually solid. Things are either there or they are not with no room for ambiguity. Etc. etc. etc.You are not alone in this view. We all do it to some extent. However modern science has taught us that our perception is limited and our comprehension irrelevant. Nature is as nature is and no matter how much you object on principles of common sense the evidence is indisputably against you.I'll leave it at that. This thread must be due for closure. You can have the last word if you so wish.

Wouldn't that equal an absence of anything?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The bar will not re-connect with the beginning. This is complete BS and gibberish. Unless you think the Earth is a tiny speck on the surface of a spherical universe. But if you do think so, you need to see a doctor.

quote:

---

The universe, void of all matter, forces, etc would consist only of existing unbounded infinite static space/area.

---

quote:

---

Again how do you know this? Apart from anything else the spontaneous creation and annhilation of matter via quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space would seem to contradict your view of what empty space is.
  —Staggler

---

Read what you have written - "spontaneous creation and annhilation of matter in the vacuum of space". My intermediate level English tells me you claim that there had been space before and during the creation of matter. But then again you try to make a point that there is no unbounded infinite static space/area. I am sure you could come up with better arguments.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

...that you need to read a bit more. You will find Straggler's words in many introductory (undergraduate) books to cosmology and quantum theory.I'd say that you're so out of your depth here that it's not funny - but that would not be true. It is damn funny...

That's not what I said at all. Read my whole message carefully. I said, "Outside of the area of space where matter, forces, etc exist......." Do you comprehend what that says, Straggler? Paraphrased, it says that there's an area of infinite space in which things exist and where ever things do not exist things could expand into that area of infinite space which would be outside of the area of infinite space in which things exist.In my warehouse there are areas where things are stored and other areas which are not occupied by things. I may expand the occupied area into the area outside of the occupied area by moving things farther apart so as to make the occupied area less dense. Savvy?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

My superior knowledge of physics (as compared to you - not a difficult level to attain) tells me that this is an experimentally observed effect that you would do well to at least look up before commenting.Happy researching.

Hi Agobot. I see you're from Bulgaria. We welcome you. Likely you're having some language translation difficulty or something. My position is as yours is, that the bar ends cannot connect without bending and that there's no property of space which allows space to reconnect the bar's two ends.On the other hand, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying to me.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.