Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Bjoern's comments re "space"

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeo View Post
    Re the post above, I have done my best to explain in simple language, I don’t know whether I can make the “creation” part of this idea any clearer and it may involve rotation on the equivalent of three axes, which is a big headache even for me. I doubt I could answer any of the questions in a way that would satisfy you. So I am not going to try again.
    If you don't bother to explain your usage of basic terms ("field", "energy" etc.), then we have no basis for communication. Bye.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Why not? Very little in the ATM threads (and particularly this one) makes even this much sense.

    Seriously, the general characteristic of the ATM threads seems to be wild flights of fancy based on fundamentally incorrect assumptions, a la von Daniken. There is a dandy thread elsewhere where the originator feels there are point mass(es) inside the electron. There is zero evidence to support this; BAUT member trinitree88 shoots this idea down without mercy. Yet the thread goes on for many pages following. I guess that’s why it’s called ‘Against the Mainstream’.

    Generally, ATM posters, it would be nice if you had the math and physics straight first. There are good self-teaching courses available free on the net. Wikipedia has to be the greatest reference source ever, try checking there. I think Bjoern is right; you can’t make up the math and physics as you go along. Do like Newton and stand on the shoulders of giants; you can see a lot further.
    Contrary to your impression, I have spent (and wasted) a lot of time over the last few years trying to make sense of the “reference sources” found in Wikipedia. So I will say from my own experience I wouldn’t recommend that approach.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phúsis), "nature" and φυσικῆ (phusiké), "knowledge of nature") is the science concerned with the discovery and understanding of the fundamental laws which govern matter, energy, space, and time. Physics deals with the elementary constituents of the universe and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems best understood in terms of these fundamental principles.”

    “In physics, time and mass are fundamental quantities and space is defined via time — as the distance d light travels in exactly 1/c second”

    “In physics, the treatment of time is a central issue. It has been treated as a question of geometry. One can measure time and treat it as a geometrical dimension, such as length, and perform mathematical operations on it. It is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually listed in most physics books as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other fundamental quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, energy and fields. Time is largely defined by its measurement in physics.”

    “Mass is a property of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter and energy it is equivalent to.”

    “Matter is defined as the substance of which physical objects are composed. In common use, energy and force fields are not usually considered to be "matter."“

    “Perhaps, a really universal definition of the term energy could be: "a potential for causing a change". This definition encompasses nearly all the present usages of the term, because energy is most often viewed as the cause for changes that humanity observes. . . . However, there is yet another widely used definition for the word energy, most often employed by physicists and scientists engaged in various other natural sciences. According to this definition, energy is the capacity of a system to do work. In turn, work is defined as the result of application of a force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) through a physical distance.”

    “In physics, force is an influence that may cause a body to accelerate.”

    And so on - ad infinitum. Now say I have an idea that “physical objects” are not “composed” of any “substance” (what “sulbstance” is that?) but are instead manifestations of a system which has the capacity to do work - in other words, an energetic system. But work is defined as the result of application of a force, and a force influences a body - of matter. It seems I am out of luck with “physics”, without even having considered how “space“ and “time“ - geometrical measurement entities in “physics” governed by “fundamental laws”? - can be described by this system, which in my concept requires the ability first to create “space“ and “time“, i.e. the ability to move.

    And I am supposed to get this tangled web of “physics” “straight”? From what I read, very few people can claim to have even parts of it “straight”.

    I think there may be some math that could describe this concept, but it doesn‘t seem like the physicists will be getting around to it anytime soon. And of course it may be completely wrong if a “real” Higgs boson is “found”.

    Finally perhaps you would like to explain why the relationships I found above are anything like the relationship of CMBR and tropical month, and why you find them so idiotic.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeo View Post
    Contrary to your impression, I have spent (and wasted) a lot of time over the last few years trying to make sense of the “reference sources” found in Wikipedia. So I will say from my own experience I wouldn’t recommend that approach.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phúsis), "nature" and φυσικῆ (phusiké), "knowledge of nature") is the science concerned with the discovery and understanding of the fundamental laws which govern matter, energy, space, and time. Physics deals with the elementary constituents of the universe and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems best understood in terms of these fundamental principles.”

    “In physics, time and mass are fundamental quantities and space is defined via time — as the distance d light travels in exactly 1/c second”

    “In physics, the treatment of time is a central issue. It has been treated as a question of geometry. One can measure time and treat it as a geometrical dimension, such as length, and perform mathematical operations on it. It is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually listed in most physics books as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other fundamental quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, energy and fields. Time is largely defined by its measurement in physics.”

    “Mass is a property of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter and energy it is equivalent to.”

    “Matter is defined as the substance of which physical objects are composed. In common use, energy and force fields are not usually considered to be "matter."“

    “Perhaps, a really universal definition of the term energy could be: "a potential for causing a change". This definition encompasses nearly all the present usages of the term, because energy is most often viewed as the cause for changes that humanity observes. . . . However, there is yet another widely used definition for the word energy, most often employed by physicists and scientists engaged in various other natural sciences. According to this definition, energy is the capacity of a system to do work. In turn, work is defined as the result of application of a force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) through a physical distance.”

    “In physics, force is an influence that may cause a body to accelerate.”

    And so on - ad infinitum. Now say I have an idea that “physical objects” are not “composed” of any “substance” (what “sulbstance” is that?) but are instead manifestations of a system which has the capacity to do work - in other words, an energetic system. But work is defined as the result of application of a force, and a force influences a body - of matter. It seems I am out of luck with “physics”, without even having considered how “space“ and “time“ - geometrical measurement entities in “physics” governed by “fundamental laws”? - can be described by this system, which in my concept requires the ability first to create “space“ and “time“, i.e. the ability to move.

    And I am supposed to get this tangled web of “physics” “straight”? From what I read, very few people can claim to have even parts of it “straight”.

    I think there may be some math that could describe this concept, but it doesn‘t seem like the physicists will be getting around to it anytime soon. And of course it may be completely wrong if a “real” Higgs boson is “found”.

    Finally perhaps you would like to explain why the relationships I found above are anything like the relationship of CMBR and tropical month, and why you find them so idiotic.
    Well said too.

    So there we have it?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    Well said too.

    So there we have it?
    Maybe for the time being Bogie, I seem to be going into hibernation mode.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,259
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeo View Post
    From Wikipedia:

    “In physics, time and mass are fundamental quantities and space is defined via time — as the distance d light travels in exactly 1/c second”
    mmmm good ole Wiki again, the all knowing reference book.

    This is the definition of the "meter" that is given here, this is not the definition of space. The meter is a length scale with which one could measure the size of "space", but according to this Wiki definition, before we set the standard meter to be defined by light (and was defined as, first 1/10000 of the length of the quarter meridian going through Paris, and later as 1/40000 of the full meridian going through Paris) there was no such thing as space. Weird!
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Right. We all know space CAN be empty but never is empty in its natural habitat . The universe uses all of the space. Where would we put the dark energy otherwise?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    330
    Following is a recent report from Information Week which I find interesting. It reports on a study and paper from the Dark Cosmology Center of Copenhagen University:

    “The 38 Essence researchers, who cooperated in countries spanning four continents, concluded that dark energy is the pressure exerted by empty space. From a quantum mechanical perspective, empty space is unstable. According to statistics, photons and subatomic particles pop into the vacuum of space in a way that shows that "empty" is only an approximation: Space actually comprises a statistical soup of particles and antiparticles that are in a constant state of creation. Today scientists can demonstrate this by pumping the gases out of any empty chamber. After every atom has been pumped out, particles begin to percolate into existence in a process called vacuum fluctuation.
    "The energy of the vacuum and vacuum fluctuations are related, but I would hesitate to say they are precisely the same thing—we are not theorists, but just analyzed the data," said Tamara Davis, a lead researcher on the University of Copenhagen team. "What we did here was analyze the latest available data to test all the more exotic models of the universe that do not use vacuum energy as the source of the universe's acceleration, and showed that at the moment there is no reason to prefer these models over the simplest model in which the acceleration is caused by a quantum mechanical interpretation of Einstein's cosmological constant." Davis worked with fellow researcher Jesper Sollerman at the University of Copenhagen's Danish Dark Cosmology Centre.
    “Einstein proposed his cosmological constant to support a static, rather than expanding, hypothesis of the universe. But with the quantum mechanical explanation of vacuum energy as the most likely cause of the expansion of the universe, the researchers propose that, in an otherwise normal theory of gravity, the cosmological constant is a measurement of the background of gravitational pressure.
    "What we measured was the equation-of-state of the dark energy, which is just an expression telling you how the pressure of the dark energy is related to its density," said Davis. "We showed that at the moment there is no reason to prefer any but the simplest model in which the acceleration is caused by a cosmological constant."
    Davis and colleagues will continue to accumulate observations, especially of very old universes where the differences between then and now are most pronounced. Also Davis plans to study the new results from the world's biggest superatom smasher—the Large Hadron Collider .
    "The Large Hadron Collider in Cern, which opens next year, will hopefully give us a lot of new and interesting information about fundamental physics that can inform our models of the universe," said Davis. "This will be an example of how knowledge of the very tiny—quantum physics—can teach us about the very large—the universe."
    According to the calculations of Davis and other astrophysicists worldwide, unless the vacuum itself exerts the negative pressure observed, then the universe must otherwise be composed of as much as 70 percent dark energy. The observations made by the Essence researchers at the Danish Dark Cosmology Centre and elsewhere have determined that by observing light from dying stars, which was emitted when the universe was about half its current age, the best model to explain the increasing acceleration of the universe is Einstein's 1917 proposal of a cosmological constant, as interpreted by modern quantum mechanical theory.
    http://www.informationweek.com/resea...leID=197001643

    It seems what this scientist is saying is that the cosmological constant, a geometric “spacetime” manipulation, is now viewed as what, in real terms, can be described as energy emerging from “space”. So the geometry of GR is to measure energetic space. This is the first time I have seen (in an article for general consumption) vacuum energy of quantum mechanics being posited for the cosmological constant of GR. If I am not misinformed, vacuum energy has been estimated as being 60 to 120 orders of magnitude greater than that required for the “accelerated expansion” intepretation of supernova observations.

    Neither quantum theories nor GR attempt to explain the origins of what they desscribe, e.g. electric charge, or “spacetime“. Even at this point when vacuum energy is seen as the cosmological constant, it emerges from space, or is contained within space. So it remains separate from space. The position of space in the realm of physical-mathematical theories remains ambiguous. Is it real and physical, or real and unphysical, or unreal but physical, or unreal and unphysical, i.e. only geometry? I think this may be because, as has been seen above, to give space a physical identity (rather than a geometrical identity) does mean some physics would have to be rewritten, or at least the perspective from which the mathematics is done would have to change. I realized this when I had the idea of an energetic spatial “field“. (Of course my idea of a “field” doesn’t fit existing terminology, because in that terminology the particle creates the field, while in my idea the field creates the particle.) Something Bjoern said in a previous post (in the Q & A thread) sticks with me, namely that “GR says that space can exist even when there is no energy present (i. e. the chain of reasoning was: no energy present ==> space can exist).” which he clarified by saying "even when there is no energy present, nevertheless space can exist". (This was in differentiating “QFT” from GR. This doesn’t sound like reasoning, it sounds like an assumption. I think the reason may be historical, in the way that institutional “physics” has evolved - and that also may be why “space” meets with silence from the scientists.

    I think the usefulness of GR geometry is limited, and the use of GR and the cosmological constant as a model wherein vacuum energy can be inserted for lambda, is an implicit admission of this. The problem I see (and of course I may be wrong) is that apparently GR cannot model a constant expansion. This would seem to eliminate any class of theories which predicts a constant expansion. It also seems to me that trying to shoehorn vacuum energy into GR is a mistake.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeo View Post
    ... Also
    Quote Originally Posted by ngeo View Post
    Davis plans to study the new results from the world's biggest superatom smasher—the Large Hadron Collider .
    "The Large Hadron Collider in Cern, which opens next year, will hopefully give us a lot of new and interesting information about fundamental physics that can inform our models of the universe," said Davis. "This will be an example of how knowledge of the very tiny—quantum physics—can teach us about the very large—the universe."
    According to the calculations of Davis and other astrophysicists worldwide, unless the vacuum itself exerts the negative pressure observed, then the universe must otherwise be composed of as much as 70 percent dark energy. The observations made by the Essence researchers at the Danish Dark Cosmology Centre and elsewhere have determined that by observing light from dying stars, which was emitted when the universe was about half its current age, the best model to explain the increasing acceleration of the universe is Einstein's 1917 proposal of a cosmological constant, as interpreted by modern quantum mechanical theory.
    http://www.informationweek.com/resea...leID=197001643
    http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2006/PR20.06E.html
    They are getting there. Can’t wait to see if the universe implodes when they create those micro black holes .

    It seems what this scientist is saying is that the cosmological constant, a geometric “spacetime” manipulation, is now viewed as what, in real terms, can be described as energy emerging from “space”. So the geometry of GR is to measure energetic space. This is the first time I have seen (in an article for general consumption) vacuum energy of quantum mechanics being posited for the cosmological constant of GR. If I am not misinformed, vacuum energy has been estimated as being 60 to 120 orders of magnitude greater than that required for the “accelerated expansion” intepretation of supernova observations.
    I intuitively want to believe that the suction of “empty” space exists outside of the expansion and is what we are expanding into. But just the opposite is supposed to happen in order for accelerated expansion to be caused by vacuum energy. The dilemma is due to the perspective, i.e. is the universe (space and matter that we call “our” expanding universe) expanding into empty space, or is space itself inflating everywhere within the universe as expansion proceeds?

    As near as I can tell, the GR discussions see it as the latter, making vacuum energy part of our expanding universe, pushing the expansion from within the universe.

    Take the opposite perspective, i.e. imagine the universe, both its energy and matter expanding into “empty” space and the concept of a suction from empty space pulling the expanding universe into it as the universe pushes as well, gives a logical view of what I think is really happening.

    “Empty space” isn’t really empty as your article suggests. But it will be relatively empty compared to the energy density of the expanding universe which is expanding into the “empty” space. I would refer to “empty” space as space which is very low in energy density compared to the space that is expanding with our universe.

    Neither quantum theories nor GR attempt to explain the origins of what they describe, e.g. electric charge, or “spacetime“. Even at this point when vacuum energy is seen as the cosmological constant, it emerges from space, or is contained within space. So it remains separate from space. The position of space in the realm of physical-mathematical theories remains ambiguous. Is it real and physical, or real and unphysical, or unreal but physical, or unreal and unphysical, i.e. only geometry? I think this may be because, as has been seen above, to give space a physical identity (rather than a geometrical identity) does mean some physics would have to be rewritten, or at least the perspective from which the mathematics is done would have to change. I realized this when I had the idea of an energetic spatial “field“. (Of course my idea of a “field” doesn’t fit existing terminology, because in that terminology the particle creates the field, while in my idea the field creates the particle.) Something Bjoern said in a previous post (in the Q & A thread) sticks with me, namely that “GR says that space can exist even when there is no energy present (i. e. the chain of reasoning was: no energy present ==> space can exist).” which he clarified by saying "even when there is no energy present, nevertheless space can exist". (This was in differentiating “QFT” from GR. This doesn’t sound like reasoning, it sounds like an assumption. I think the reason may be historical, in the way that institutional “physics” has evolved - and that also may be why “space” meets with silence from the scientists.
    Bjoern will hate having me agree with him, but I have to agree that there can be space without energy, but I will qualify that to say that even though there can be, there is no space that doesn’t contain energy at some density level. I just mean that space and energy are two different things and they are always found together. There is no empty space because energy expands to fill all space, I bet.

    I think the usefulness of GR geometry is limited, and the use of GR and the cosmological constant as a model wherein vacuum energy can be inserted for lambda, is an implicit admission of this. The problem I see (and of course I may be wrong) is that apparently GR cannot model a constant expansion. This would seem to eliminate any class of theories which predicts a constant expansion. It also seems to me that trying to shoehorn vacuum energy into GR is a mistake.
    You are right about that. You are talking about the “fine-tuning” problem if I understand correctly.

    This article does a good job of defining the problem and goes on to address how science marches on.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    330
    "The energy of the vacuum and vacuum fluctuations are related, but I would hesitate to say they are precisely the same thing—we are not theorists, but just analyzed the data," said Davis in the report from Information Week. Maybe in one sense she is distinguishing between vacuum fluctuations of the “inflation epoch” and the “vacuum energy” which the article’s writer described as dark energy: “the pressure exerted by empty space” (which sounds like the idea I have been trying to explain, except in my understanding space is not empty, it is energetic.) Or maybe not, I am just reading tea leaves.

    And further down (again note by the writer, not Davis): “According to the calculations of Davis and other astrophysicists worldwide, unless the vacuum itself exerts the negative pressure observed, then the universe must otherwise be composed of as much as 70 percent dark energy.”

    Dark energy/vacuum fluctuations/vacuum energy/pressure exerted by empty space/cosmological constant - would this be where the scientists “shut up and calculate”?

    The linked “cosmic coincidence” article raised more questions. “During the decades following common acceptance of the Big Bang model, physicists and astronomers tried very hard to measure the composition of the universe.”

    Maybe you could measure the number of apples in a universe “composed of” apples, but how would you measure a universe “composed of” apples (matter) and music (dark energy)? Maybe the musical composition includes the apples?

    “According to theory, the average density of the universe would determine its ultimate fate. A universe with too little matter would expand forever, and its average density would eventually drop to zero. A universe with too much matter, on the other hand, would one day collapse under its own gravity (the ‘Big Crunch’).”

    In other words, the apples are what ‘count‘ in this scenario, not the music.

    “Only one special value, the critical density, could prevent both a Big Crunch and the unchecked expansion of the universe. If the universe were actually at the critical density, which has a clear physical significance, the fine-tuning problem wouldn’t be so bad. A universe starting at the critical density remains at the critical density forever, which sounds like a clue to some deeper physical law. One might claim that an unknown physical process makes this the only possible value. But in knowing that the initial density was some other number, physicists had to admit that any initial density was possible.”

    Add in the music, and the fine tuning riddle adds another layer of mystery.

    Dealing with what is, not what is possible, even according to a “maybe” Big Bang scenario, might have some value. The “initial density” of apples in the universe was close to the magic number. It wasn’t any number, it was close. There has to be some “deeper physical law” that embraces both apples and music, matter and dark energy, or else (I sense in my ignorance) the theorists are left with two separate baskets of mutually incompatible energy.

    So why not try rewriting the “maybes” to fit the music, instead of trying to fine tune the theory? Maybe Davis is trying to point that way by explicitly differentiating between vacuum energy and vacuum fluctuations. While not presuming to put myself in her company, that is what I am trying to get at by pointing to “energetic space”.

Similar Threads

  1. Accuracy of a black hole's "inner horizon" and "space falling faster than light"
    By mugaliens in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-09, 01:54 AM
  2. What happens when BA blog comments are "awaiting moderation"
    By Messier Tidy Upper in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2009-Oct-17, 01:44 AM
  3. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-31, 08:11 AM
  4. Can we call "astronauts" the "sub-orbital space tourists/jumpers" ?
    By gaetanomarano in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-14, 01:09 PM
  5. A Possible Explanation of the "Pyroclastic Flow" Comments?
    By Gillianren in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-04, 04:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •