Bob K

eh:

Bob K:eh:Bob K:eh:I do not agree.

‘Nothing’ is no presence of matter/energy.

Here are excerpts from the definitions I had previously presented, which you deleted:

The American Heritage Dictionary:

Nothing: 1. No thing; not anything. 2. No significant thing. ... 6. Absence of anything perceptible; ... .

The Random-House Dictionary:

Nothing: 1. No thing or not anything. 2. No matter of any kind. 3. A complete absence of something. ...

Webster’s New World Dictionary:

Nothing: Noun: 1. No thing; not anything. 2. Nothingness. ...

The Harper-Collins Dictionary of Philosophy (Peter A. Angeles, ed.):

Nothing: Not any thing; the denial ... of an existent. Opposite to something, thing, anything, everything.

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Simon Blackburn, ed.):

Nothing: The non-existence of ... things; a concept that can be frightening, fascinating, or dismissed as the product of the logical confusion of treating the term ‘nothing’ as itself a referring expression instead of a quantifier. ... The feelings that lead some philosophers and theologians ... to talk of the experience of Nothing is not properly the experience of nothing, but rather the failure of a hope or expectation that there would be something of some kind at some point. This may arise in quite everyday cases, as when one finds that the article of furniture one expected to see as usual in the corner has disappeared. ... Other substantive problems arise over conceptualizing empty space and time.

Preferred:

The American Heritage Dictionary:

Nothing: 1. No thing, ... 6. Absence of anything perceptible.

The Random-House Dictionary:

Nothing: 1. No thing ... 2. No matter of any kind. 3. A complete absence of something. ...

Webster’s New World Dictionary:

Nothing: Noun: 1. No thing ... . 2. Nothingness. ...

The Harper-Collins Dictionary of Philosophy (Peter A. Angeles, ed.):

Nothing: Not any thing ... . Opposite to something, thing, anything, everything.

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Simon Blackburn, ed.):

Nothing: The non-existence of ... things ...

All these excerpts have within them the idea of nothing = no thing/no matter/energy/absence of anything perceptible/absence of something/no matter/energy present

My Point: ‘Nothing,’ as in ‘no thing,’ means, or should mean, in physics, and so does in Operational physics, the lack of presence of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy. This is not the negation of existence, because of the fact that space, comprised of ‘no things,’ no people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, therefore, ‘nothing,’ exists as an empty volume, a pure vacuum, which would be 100% pure except for the presence of matter/energy, such presence being limited by the finite quantity of matter/energy, given and proven by thermodynamics, with the result that there have to be, logically, intuitively, volumes, areas, of space in which there exists ‘no thing,’ no matter/energy, no people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, and, therefore, ‘nothing.’

Bob K:eh:I do not “refer to space as an absolute vacuum where there is matter”; instead, space is a pure vacuum EXCEPT for those local areas in which matter/energy is present, in which locales the space is ‘contaminated’ by matter/energy and is therefore ‘impure.’

Thermodynamics says that matter/energy is infinite in duration, because it cannot be destroyed but only changed in form, as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2, which have been experimentally confirmed, AND matter/energy is finite in quantity, described by the conservation of matter/energy, and the law of that the sum total of matter/energy is a constant.

Thus, there is an infinity of matter/energy, its duration, its indestructibility, and there is a ‘finity’ [‘finity’ being the opposite of ‘infinity,’ for humorous, but necessary, effect] of matter/energy, its quantity, which cannot be infinite, but, in fact, is observed to be finite.

Operational Physics: You cannot have an infinite dispersion into infinite space of a finite quantity of matter/energy; there have to be, therefore, areas of space in which there is matter/energy present, and other areas of space in which there is no matter/energy present.

Operational Physics: Energy can be focused into force fields; the presence of force fields means the presence of energy, a form of matter/energy, and, therefore, when an area of space is filled with a force field, it is filled with the energy form of matter/energy, and, therefore, that area of space is not a pure vacuum, is not empty, is not ‘nothingness’, etc.

Bob K:eh:My point: We overuse the term ‘thing,’ as shown by the definitions provided, which you have deleted, perhaps mercifully, for the brevity of communication, and in Operational Physics, OpPhys, I am determined to require the specification of terms, preferably via operational definitions, rather than, instead of, using the term ‘thing.’

Bob K:eh:Again, we overuse ‘thing’ and therefore trivialize its definition until we can too easily confuse ourselves by a lack of specification of what is a ‘thing.’

In OpPhys, a ‘thing’ is a person/object comprised of matter/energy, having an identity, having a longer duration in the spatial and temporal realities than related events, which are relationships between/among things, between/among people/objects.

If ‘it’ ain’t comprised of matter/energy, it ain’t a thing.

Space is not comprised of matter/energy, therefore space ain’t a thing.

Space exists as an area/arena/location/place/theatre/volume of unbounded/infinite dimensions in which could exist the physical reality, matter/energy, and in those local areas in which matter/energy is not present space is a pure vacuum, but in those areas in which matter/energy is present space is not a pure vacuum.

Space is therefore nothingness, unless ‘contaminated’ by the presence of matter/energy.

Space is not a ‘thing.’ A ‘nothingness’ is not a thing.

Note that in the definitions of ‘thing’ and ‘nothing’ presented there is the concept of ‘nothing’ = ‘nothingness’ which justifies the expression of ‘space’ = nothingness.’

What is a pure vacuum? In OpPhys, it is an empty volume, an infinite empty volume, a volume comprised of nothing, no thing, no people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, and therefore a nothingness, with the exception of those areas in which there is the presence of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, and, therefore, there is the presence of matter/energy.

eh:I am saying that I want to claim that space is not a physical ‘thing’ in the sense that it is not made, comprised, constituted, etc., of matter or energy, of matter/energy, and I am glad that you see there is ‘nothing’/“there wouldn’t be anything” wrong with that claim.

However, my main point is that physics is loaded with terms that are not operationally defined, and this fact leads to a mysticism in physics that is as offensive to truth and therefore reality as religion, and, thus, this mysticism of physics has to be addressed and overcome by the use of operational definitions of terms physicists want to use for the development of their theories and experiments and conclusions and to communicate effectively with themselves and with other humans who happen to be non-physicists.

Space has not been operationally defined accurately by physicists.

I see a problem of miscommunication resulting from a lack of adequate/effective operational definitions of terms physicists want to use and conclude that there has to be the development of, and use of, adequate/effective operational terms for any and all terms physicists want to use.

Case in Point: When ‘space’ is defined to be a pure vacuum except for those areas in which matter/energy is present, as soon as we find energy then we are justified in concluding that we do not have a pure vacuum, and, therefore, when we find energy, or an impure area of space, then we can know that we need to focus upon determining the nature of that energy and that the presence of energy is the presence of matter/energy, and, matter/energy being the source of causality, we can conclude that those physicists who believe something can come from nothing, that something can come from a vacuum, which is nonsense when space is defined, operationally defined, to be a pure vacuum except for those areas in which matter/energy is present, are wrong, because now, with the effective operational definition of space, the presence of energy, energy being energy and part of the continuum of matter/energy, matter <---> energy, means space in that area is not a pure vacuum, and that something, whatever person/thing/event being observed, comes from something, from energy, from the matter/energy which is then and therefore present in that area of space.

Mysticism = Something, a person/thing/event comprised of matter/energy, can come from nothing, from no person/thing/event comprised of matter/energy,.

Reality: All persons/things/events comprised of matter/energy come from other people/things/events comprised of matter/energy.

A person/thing/event comprised of matter/energy, in contrast to being the content of an idea, is proof of the presence of something, some other, previous, prior, person(s/thing(s)/event(s), possibly a form of matter/energy not previously observed and therefore not currently known.

A force field of any kind is an energy field.

In the Casimir Effect there is a force field comprised of energy that ‘contaminates’ a vacuum so that the ‘vacuum’ is no longer a pure vacuum, pure space, and, thus the Casimir Effect is not some mystical element in the religion known as physics, but, instead, is rationally explained as resulting from the energy present in a force field and is therefore another case in which something comes from something, in which causality, people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, instead of being the content of ideas, are created by/caused by previous/prior people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, and is therefore proof that the the source of causality is matter/energy.

By this insight, that something, some person/thing/event comprised of matter/energy, in contrast to being the content of an idea, comes from, is caused by, is created by, etc., prior, previous, pre-existing people/things/events also comprised of matter/energy, and that, therefore, no person/thing/event can come from, by created by, be caused by, etc., no person/thing/event not comprised of matter/energy, requires us, whenever we are confronted by a physical fact not readily accounted for by current knowledge of matter/energy to look for new/unknown forms of matter/energy or new laws/principles governing old/known forms of matte/energy.

Case in Point: The Alan Aspect experiments in which when the spin of a particle is reversed, altered, when a companion/twin particle also reverses its spin so quickly, if not simultaneously, that the communication of information of the matter/energy needed to cause the companion’s/twin’s spin reversal would have to travel faster than the speed of light, at superluminal speeds, sow that when we consider the fact that a person/thing/event comprised of matter/energy, in contrast to being the content of an idea, can only be caused by, created by, a prior, previous, person/thing/event also comprised of matter/energy, then we know that the effect of the companion particle’s spin reversal must have been caused by either a new form of matter/energy or new laws governing old forms of matter/energy.

Thus, by carefully defining terms operationally, by using operational definitions, definitions which define a term or phrase by descriptions/observations/measurements of people/things/events, we may avoid the problem, and consequences, of overlooking either new forms of matter/energy or new relationships among old/known forms of matter/energy.

Bob K:eh:Then you and I agree that we are aware of a difference in definitions of ‘vacuum’ which need to be reconciled.

I therefore contend that, to eliminate mysticism, descriptions of nonreality, or descriptions of people/things/events not yet proven to be reality, not comprised of matter/energy, in physics a vacuum should be defined operationally as an area/arena/location/place/stage/theatre/volume of space in which no person/thing/event comprised of matter/energy is present.

A volume with no matter/energy = a vacuum; a volume with matter/energy = no vacuum.

Note that an area/volume of space in which matter/energy is present which is not a pure vacuum can be surrounded by areas/volumes of space in which matter/energy is not present and which are pure vacuums. This observation can help us understand the fact that there can be no closed space, no finite volume of space, no closed universe. Thus, regardless of the claims of theoretical physicists, there will always exist a ‘beyond’ which is beyond any claimed closed/limited/finite space/universe/etc.

This definition leads us back to an understanding the definition of the spatial reality necessary for the definition of the universe as comprised of the three realities of space as the spatial reality, time as the temporal reality, and matter/energy as the physical reality.

If these concepts/principles of Operational Psychology disturb previously held myths in physics, then so be it.

One myth is that QM somehow justifies belief in the existence, the necessary existence, of multiple or parallel universes, which is absurd because of the necessity for the universe to be defined as the combination of the three realities, which requires that there be only one spatial reality, only one space, in which matter/energy can be present, and, since the physical reality of matter/energy is finite, there can be no additional universes of any kind, multiple or parallel, and, thus, instead of there being gazillions of potential multiple/parallel universes there can be only one universe.

If there is a myth that QM specifies that there can be no absence of matter/energy in space, then, because of the understanding of the universe as comprised of the three realities, particularly the infinite volume of space and the finite quantity of matter/energy, we have to conclude, logically, that there must exist areas, local volumes, of space in which no matter/energy is present and which are, therefore, pure vacuums, and, therefore, the zero ground state of QM is a myth, a fiction, and rework all theoretical physics to accommodate this fact and see what we have once we have done so.

Bob K:eh:From my experience in developing Operational Psychology, OpPsych, which includes Communications Analysis, CommAn, one of the two major problems of communication is not being specific, not stating precisely what person(s)/thing(s)/event(s) is (are) wanted/expected/needed/etc., the other major problem being not giving or asking for feedback, paraphrases of what was said, what is intended, so that a person can better ‘get’/understand a message communicated to him or otherwise can correct a misinterpretation, a misparaphrase, of a message he communicated.

If we are not specific in our communications, we can expect to develop problems of miscommunication.

In the Code of Science, operational definitions are required for specific and therefore effective communication.

Operational definitions are therefore needed for the science of physics.

By operational definitions physicists may be lead to getting rid of myths and to finding new physics.

Bob K

eh:

Bob K:eh:George Joos, Theoretical Physics, Dover Publications, New York, 1986, p. 501:

Chapter XXX

The First Law of Thermodynamics: The Conservation of Energy

The First Law makes a statement concerning the nature of heat. It asserts heat is a form of energy, and that in a closed system the total store of energy, i.e., the sum of the heat energy and mechanical or electrical energy, is a constant. This is the principle of the Conservation of Energy, formulated by Robert Mayer in 1842. Thus, in a closed system, one form of energy may be transformed into another, but the sum must remain constant. ... [Italics in original]

Note: This quote is reproduced in The Oxford Dictionary of Physics.

The laws of thermodynamics state that matter and energy cannot be destroyed but only changed in form, as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2, and that the sum total of matter and energy is a constant.

This covers the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter, which gives us the infinite duration of matter/energy, AND the finite quantity of matter/energy.

Again, either you agree that this is a scientific fact or you do not.

Bob K:eh:What Heisenberg said can be paraphrased thus: We have trouble observing without disturbing small stuff.

Because we cannot observe and not disturb small stuff, we cannot predict what individual small stuffs will do, therefore we must use observed and confirmed averages for predictions.

We know that in a crowd of atoms on average a specific number will decay, but we cannot predict which individual atoms will decay and which will not, therefore we must use averages for predictions for small stuffs.

Thus, we have another one of the myths of physics: that there is no determinism and therefore no predictability for individual small stuff.

Niels Bohr made a proposal that enables us to get around the observers should not disturb standard: If we are able to measure the incoming path of a target, and if we know the path, velocity and mass of whatever is used for observation, then when the observation particle hits the target, the particle and the target will diverge and the measurement of the divergence can give us the determinism and predictability for which we were searching.

We can use a gendankenexperiment, an intuitive thought-experiment, to imagine determinism and predictability of small stuff.

Imagine that we are Perfect Observers, POs. We can make ourselves as big or as small as we wish. We use a form of perception that does not disturb the objects and events we want to observe; this form of perception has the effect of giving us instant information, no time-delay between us and what we want to observe, and does not cause any disturbance of what we want to observe, what we observe.

As POs, we could observe and not disturb, and, as we observe, we would be observing and not disturbing.

If we were POs, then we could observe small stuff, and, by observing and not disturbing, we would observe the previous configurations of matter/energy at previous timepoints and thus determine their velocity and momentum and thus and therefore be able to predict what the observed small stuffs will do in the future.

If we were POs inside a Schroedinger Box, we could observe and not disturb the small stuffs therein and determine if or not the small stuff decay would happen that would trigger the death of the cat and therefore we would know in advance of a scheduled timepoint for the opening of the box if or not the cat would be dead or alive.

Thus, and therefore, as POs, we would observe determinism and predictability at the level of small stuffs, no matter how small the small stuffs are.

QM merely states the obvious, that we are not POs, and that, therefore, we have a problem of observing and not disturbing, that we do, in fact, observe and disturb, that we presently cannot observe and not disturb.

Not being POs, therefore, we cannot determine BOTH the velocity and position of an individual small stuff simultaneously.

The Theory of Perfect Observers gives us the intuitive insight to understand that there is determinism and predictability throughout all of physics at all levels. The Theory of Perfect Observers thus gives us back a common-sense vision of the universe and its three realities of space, time and matter/energy.

The Theory of QM gives us the practical applications of observed/confirmed averages we need to make real-world predictions of the happenings of crowds of small stuffs.

The caution, however, given by the Theory of Perfect Observers, is to avoid overrunning what QM actually says into the development of mysticisms in physics such as multiple/parallel universes, the infinite dispersion of matter/energy, energy present in a pure vacuum, somethings coming from nothings, the range of action-at-a-distance of force fields is infinite, etc.

Bob K:eh:Think for a moment: The duration of matter/energy is infinite, but the quantity of matter/energy is finite.

Can the finite quantity of matter/energy be infinitely dispersed throughout the infinity of space?

It cannot.

At some point or other you would run out of matter/energy to disperse.

Beyond that point you would have a pure vacuum.

This is so regardless of what anyone else claims.

Not because I say so, but because matter/energy is infinite in duration but finite in quantity and therefore cannot be infinitely dispersed through the infinity of space.

If there are areas of space in which there is no matter/energy present, then the laws of QM have to be re-written, and the myth of every point in space having energy connected with it has to be thrown aside in favor of a better description of reality.

Also, note that when matter/energy is no longer available to be dispersed we also have a limit to the force fields which can be extended into space by matter/energy.

Thus, although force fields, themselves a form of energy, create action-at-a-distance, the range of such action-at-a-distance cannot be and therefore is not infinite. There must be a point at which when there is no matter/energy there are no force fields of energy and the action-at-a-distance phenomenon disappears, beyond which point there is only the pure vacuum of space.

Bob K

Answerer:

Answerer:Spacetime is a fiction, one of the myths of physics I have been complaining about.

Newton defined universal/absolute time as time which flows at a uniform rate.

To my knowledge, Newton ever specified that the measurement of universal/absolute time had to be conducted using invariable time-intervals.

For universal/absolute time to flow at a uniform rate, an invariable time-interval must be used.

This is where the Theory of Invariable Time-Intervals re-establishes universal/absolute time, and the independence, therefore, of time and space.

Invariable time-intervals are defined as time-intervals which are not affected by changes of velocity and/or gravity. that is, regardless of the change of velocity/gravity of the clocks in which they are being used, for time-intervals to measure universal/absolute time, they must be invariable time-intervals, which would then establish the uniform flow of time Newton described as necessary for establishing universal/absolute time.

Invariable time-intervals, easily envisioned in gedankenexperiments, intuitive thought experiments, in which once established and regardless of the changes of velocity/gravity experienced by their clocks, they measure universal/absolute time and therefore establish universal/absolute time.

Real-world invariable time-intervals can be created using clocks that are motion-sensing and self-adjusting, which, when subject to changes of velocity/gravity, which would change their motion, would sense the change of motion and adjust the time-interval to conform with similar clocks not affected by changes of motion via changes of velocity/gravity.

Also, real-world invariable time-intervals can be created by synchronizing clocks so they read the same face-readings and therefore measurements of time-intervals as the controlling clock, the clock that is part of the electronics that sends the synchronization signals.

Thus, with the re-establishment of universal/absolute time we have the re-establishment of the independence of time from space, and, by the reciprocal, the re-establishment of the independence of space from time.

With all this ‘re-establishment’ going on, the concept of spacetime, created by the erroneous use of variable time-intervals, is now established to be a fiction.

A fiction, therefore, unless you think variable time-intervals actually define time, as did Einstein in his book, Relativity, on page 99, in which case you are compelled to agree with Einstein and embrace the concept of spacetime.

Space has to exist, as a pure vacuum, in which other ‘stuffs’ could exist, and have to exist, without the presence of those other ‘stuffs,’ particularly, without the presence of matter/energy.

Time would exist, independent of space, as a concept/principle which could be made real whenever people/things (machines, such as computers) comprised of matter/energy needed to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events and could do so by the use of time-intervals.

Thus, time and space are not forced to exist together, but, instead, by intuitive understanding of their natures and specific operational definitions thereof, exist independently of each other.

Matter/energy can only exist in space; it cannot exist ‘anywhere else’ because ‘anywhere else’ does not exist.

The existence in space of matter/energy is the only connection between matter/energy and space; a necessary connection, because there is no place else for matter/energy to ‘exist in.’

Space, being a pure vacuum and having therefore no structure, cannot impose a structure or limitations upon matter/energy, which is why space is one of the three realities which comprise the universe, matter/energy being another universal reality, and time being another universal reality.

Matter/energy, having a structure, can impose its force fields through local volumes/areas of space only in the sense of becoming a presence in space, but matter/energy does not impose a structure upon the totality of space because space as a pure vacuum has no structure upon which another structure can be imposed.

In summary: Spacetime is a fiction created because of the use of variable time-intervals which cannot measure a uniform flow of time and therefore cannot represent time in physics, and because spacetime was created using an invalid assumption that variable time-intervals define operationally time, space and time have only the appearance of being interdependent in the concept of spacetime whereas when invariable time-intervals are used time becomes independent of space and space becomes independent of time.

Imagine you are traveling into space and I am to remain here upon the Earth. We want to schedule a ‘time’ when we want to talk with each other, exchange information, tell some jokes, etc.

How can we schedule a simultaneous event in which we talk with each other?

Whose clock should we yours? Your? Mine?

If we use clocks which are designed to use variable time-intervals either we have to adjust one of our clocks, yours or mine, to compensate for the expected and predictable change of rate of functioning/operation of your clock, so when we arrive at the same timepoint we can communicate simultaneously, adjusting for the time required for electromagnetic radio waves to transmit information through space.

By adjusting one clock to compensate for the variable time-intervals of the other clocks, we are establishing universal/absolute time.

We can establish universal/absolute time by agreeing to use invariable time-intervals by either motion-sensing/self-adjusting clocks or synchronizing our clocks by the use of radio signals.

Thus, when your invariable time-interval clock’s face reading is of an agreed-upon and therefore scheduled invariable time-interval measurement, and, therefore, the same as mine, then we will have the simultaneity we need to communicate as scheduled, as agreed-upon.

Time and space for us will thus be independent.

eh

Take a look at the bolded text and then tell me nothing is not the negation of existence.

Dictionary.com defines a thing as: An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

Anything that exists is a thing, by definition. The space you talk about clearly has dimensions, existence, and itself is a thing.

Yeah but in physics, space does not mean nothingness either. Since when do you care about that?

You're repeating yourself again. Condense your material, please.


.....Thermodynamics says that matter/energy is infinite in duration, because it cannot be destroyed but only changed in form, as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2, which have been experimentally confirmed, AND matter/energy is finite in quantity, described by the conservation of matter/energy, and the law of that the sum total of matter/energy is a constant.

Just because energy is conserved, does not mean the total energy in the universe is finite to start with. I also don't see an explanation as to why energy density must be conserved.

Nonsense. The overall energy of the universe has never been 'observed' since we don't even know if it is finite or infinite. An infinite universe would have an infinite amount of energy.


Matter is not expanding into a pre existing space. What part of that don't you understand?

Either the universe (space) is finite, in which case it will not expand forever, or the universe is infinite. In neither case do we have a problem.

Space is just another name for the gravitational field, which at no times is empty of energy. It want to claim the universe itself sits in a higher empty space, it cannot be a 3D space.

If you want to stick to the definitions given by physics, just say so. To start, we can refer to a thing as matter/energy. However, if we're using physics definitions, space is the gravitational field of the universe. Since there is energy at every point in this field, space is very clearly a thing under this definition.

Ok, physics definitions it is.

Incorrect, see above.

No, quantum theory says otherwise. A vacuum is the ground state of any field, which is always non zero. Your definition of pure vacuum does not exist in this universe.

No there wouldn't be anything wrong with a 3D space existing, devoid of anything else. But phyiscs says space is indeed a something, being comprised of energy.

I seriously doubt the problem lies with those in the scientific community. It's the laymens interpretation of scientific concepts that lead to such mysticism. See quantum mechanics for an example, as New Agers somehow think it provides support to the notion of souls. Christians seeing the big bang as proof of a divine creation, is another example. But I don't think those in the actual field are having this problem.

Actually, it has. Space is the gravitational field of the universe. Quantum theory says that fields have a non zero ground state energy, and this applies to gravity as well. It is only those who refuse to pick up a physics book that would see space as being undefined.

I disagree. It's the casual physics reader that will run into such problems, but only from a lack of education in the subject.

Let me cut you off here. A vacuum can be defined, as a region of space without matter, not the other way around. GR and QM says such regions will not exist.


Yes, there is energy causing the plate to come together. That is the whole point! Your definition of pure space does not exist in this universe, because the energy in the casimir effect is present everywhere in space. The vacuum is the ground state of the universe, and you will always find this energy present. If not, QM must be wrong.


That isn't the physics definition of a vacuum, and it does not exist in this world. A vacuum is merely the lowest energy state of any given field.

Yes, that would be the correct definition 100 years ago. Not today though.

As long you understand that the modern definition of space is not that of 100 years ago. If you want to say that a 4D closed universe would still sit in an infinite vacuum, that would be another story.

But there is no logical reason why this pre existing vacuum must be so. In fact, I can see no reason to believe it should exist at all, and might as well be discarded on the grounds of being redundant.

This space is quite useless, and I see no reason why it needs to exist. A closed universe works well enough without needing to sit in a higher dimensional space. It's just like the ether of old. It may exist, but is undetectible, redundant, and might as well not exist at all.

OM does not justify the existence of a multiverse. But inflation, if ever proven correct, does. It's semantics, but there is only one universe. A multiverse is a just a name for universe with many different zones of galaxies, laws of phyiscs, etc.

But they do not require your version of space to exist, nor do they require your version of time.

Again, let's remember the physics definition of space is not the same as your definition. The universe may be finite, and will not expand forever, with an ever decreasing energy density. If you want to claim the ZPE is a myth, then you should be able to Ok explain all the experimental success of QM,. Your explaination of the casimir effect is a perfect example, as you admit there is energy in seemingly empty space, as predicted by QM.

That's right. Contradictions also cause communication problems, such as when you claimed space was nothing, then denied ever making such an assertion. But let's get these definitions out in the open one more time, to avoid future confusion.

Defintions in Phyiscs

Space - the gravitational field of the universe
Vacuum - ground state of a field

Easy enough?

eh

No where in that letter you posted is there a reference to energy density. And no, there is nothing there that says the overall energy of the universe must be finite either.

This is not what the uncertaintly principle refers to. A particle cannot have both a precise position and momentum at the same time. It has nothing to do with our ability to observe, though that issue does come up in QM. The uncertaintly principle applies to fields as well, hence ZPE.

The rest is not relevant.

No, that's why a finite universe will eventually collapse. An open, infinite universe has an infinite amount of energy.

Since space is just the gravitational field, there is no reason it must be infinite. If you want to speculate about a vacuum outside our universe, it's outside the realm of science for obvious reasons. I personally find the idea redundant like the ether of old.

Bob K

eh:

Bob K:eh:I repeat:In a closed system, the total store of energy/the sum of the heat/mechanical/electrical energy is a constant.

What is a constant?

A constant is a finite number.

And it is a finite number regardless of whether or not you agree with that statement.

No matter how big is the finite number it cannot be increased, or the number will not be finite but, instead, when be infinite.

Thus, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, we have a description of the infinite duration of matter/energy, because of its indestructibility, which is caused by its convertibility described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2, and we have the finity of matter/energy described by the concept of the sum total number for matter/energy and the principle that the sum total of matter/energy is a constant, a constant being a finite number, definitely not an infinite number, regardless of your opinion, or the opinions of anyone else, regardless of who he/she/it is.

If you do not observe that in the First Law of Thermodynamics we have the infinite duration of matter/energy and the finite quantity of matter/energy then I have to conclude that you are suffering from some sort of theoretical prejudice, and our discussion ends.

Bob K:eh:Heisenberg said the reason we cannot determine the precise position and momentum/velocity of a particle is because we cannot observe and not disturb the particle, because to observe it we have to hit it with another particle or with lightwaves, which disturbs its position/momentum/etc., and thus alters its original determinism/predictability.

Niels Bohr stated that if we were able to observe the new velocities/trajectories/momentums of both the target particle and the tracer particle/lightwave then we can determine the new determinism/predictability of the original target particle as well as the tracer particle/lightwave, and, therefore, recover determinism and predictability at QM levels.

I have shown you the Theory of Perfect Observers to show you how, if the problem of observing and disturbing could be eliminated, we could recover determinism/predictability for individual small stuffs at QM levels. I did not ask you if or not the Theory of Perfect Observers is true; I told you it is true, not because I said it was true, but because it is true.

If you are incapable of imagining/intuiting the Theory of Perfect Observers and the necessary conclusions from it, though produced by gedankenexperiments, which are used by theoretical physicists, which Einstein, himself, used, and so stated, then our discussion ends because of your theoretical prejudice.

Bob K:eh:The universe does not have an infinite amount of energy. That is clear and obvious from the description of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The sum total of matter/energy is a constant; and a constant is a finite number.

If it is not clear and obvious to you, then you’ve got the problem previously diagnosed.

Bob K:eh:I have never heard a definition of space to be ‘just the gravitational field.’

The Oxford Dictionary of Physics, Alan Isaacs, ed., Fourth Edition, 2000:

Space: 1. A property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended into three mutually perpendicular directions. In Newtonian physics, space, time and matter are treated as quite separate entities. In Einsteinian physics, space and time are combined into a four-dimensional continuum [spacetime] and in the general theory of relativity matter is regarded as having an effect on space, causing it to curve. 2. Outer Space: The part of the universe that lies outside the earth’s atmosphere.

NOTE: The Oxford Dictionary of Physics is a 2000 year edition, not a circa 1900’s edition.

Noting the Einsteinian conclusion that matter has an effect on space, causing the curvature of space, we note that this is erroneous when we use the Operational Physics description and definition of space to be a pure vacuum of infinite physical dimensions/extensions except for those areas in which matter/energy is present, with matter/energy being recognized as infinite in duration but finite in quantity.

You cannot curve a vacuum. Within a vacuum, there is no matter/energy to curve.

When you have matter/energy present in space, matter/energy may create a force field, and people/things/events may be subject to the effects of that force field, but space itself is not curved or otherwise subject to that force field.

In general, when you argue for or against an individual’s theory you argue for or against his concepts and principles, and, by the Code of Science, which requires operational definitions of all major terms used for concept/principles, those concepts/principles must be given operational definitions, or communication is not possible.

Note that I am not asking you if or not in your opinion the above statement is true; I am telling you it is true and therefore beyond your opinion.

Einstein failed to create an adequate operational definition of time, because he failed to note that the time-interval, the unit of measurement of time, the unit of time, is the key concept/principle of time and that time-intervals can be classified as variable or invariable, and he unwittingly used variable time-intervals to develop his theory of relativity.

I have so noted and challenged his thinking because of my awareness of the second type of time-interval, the invariable time-interval, which, when used as the standard for the unit of time, the unit of time-measurement, produces a uniform flow of time, a uniform rate at which time not only flows but can be measured, and thus gives us back the Newtonian concept/principle of absolute/universal time, which Newton described as the uniform flow of time, the uniform rate of the flow of time, etc.

In a similar manner I have noted that space has to be an unbounded volume of infinite physical dimensions, no end to the number of rigid measuring rods which could be set perpendicular/at right angles to each other and parallel to each other (if they were curved, and therefore not rigid, they could not be parallel to each other, for the definition of parallel means if extended two lines/rigid rods would never intersect nor catch up with themselves, and if the ‘rigid rods’ were curved, then they either would intersect each other or otherwise catch up with themselves).

Thus, three-dimensional space cannot have any finite dimensions, and, having no finite dimensions, is therefore infinite in dimensions.

And, again, space is a pure vacuum except for those areas in which matter/energy is present. You cannot curve a vacuum; you can curve matter/energy which is present in space, the space which is not a pure vacuum because of the presence of matter/energy, but, nevertheless, space itself, being not comprised of matter/energy, cannot be curved or otherwise affected by matter/energy.

If you are incapable imagining/intuiting a dimensionless volume, or a volume of infinite dimensions, then you are incapable of imagining/intuiting the true nature of space and its total independence from time and matter/energy.

Thus, the definition/concept/principle of space resulting from Einstein’s conclusions is wrong; space is not limited, nor closed, because you cannot limit nor close an infinite volume, a volume with no physical dimensions and therefore no physical limits.

eh

That does not follow. If the energy of the universe is infinite now, it has always been infinite, and always will be. There is absolutely no reason why the energy of the universe must be finite. Provide a reason why an infinite amount of energy would not remain constant throughout time.

Since you have not jusitifed the claim the total energy of the universe must be finite, the above is meaningless.

Sigh, see above.

Let's be clear. Are you denying the fact that a particle does NOT have both a precise position and energy level? This has nothing to do with our ability to observe a system without changing it. A particle simple does not posses both of those properties at the same time.

Sorry, I don't think this has anything to do with the uncertainty principle, and certainly not the fact the vacuum most posses a finite amount of energy.

You're not making much sense here. This has nothing to do with theorectical prejudice, only the facts. If you can't even follow the correct definitions of space and the uncertainty principle, then the discussion should indeed end.

Provide support why an infinite amount of energy would not remain constant, and would not remain conserved.
Then I suggest further reading. Perhaps some physics books on the matter would help.

But for clarification, go here:
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2330.html

The archive there should clear up some of your definition problems.

And what is the problem with this definition? I see nothing wrong with this definition, though the gravitational field is a more precise description.

I've already told you, the definition of space as an infinite vacuum, is NOT the definition used in physics. You may think Einstein was wrong, but that's because you're not even on the same page. I don't know why you insist on calling space an infinite, empty 3D space with seperate existence from energy, when cosmologists say it is something entirely different
Wow, I'm sure the scientific community would love to be enlightened by your brilliant insights. Seriously, do you not think this has been attempted before? Do you not think there is a reason relativity has prevailed?

But you haven't provided any justification for this claim at all. There is absolutely no reason why spacetime (which is not your definition of space) must float in a greater volume of space. Nothing logical, and certainly nothing scientific.

And you have nothing to support this claim. Nothing.

And yet again, your definition of space is not what scientists in the field mean by space. Because of this, your arguments against GR are nothing but a strawman attack.

This makes no sense. A volume, by definition has dimensions. The space you describe, clearly has 3 dimensions, and it's existence would be no less hard to explain that the existence of any matter or energy.

And that folks, is yet another strawman.

Bob K

Reply to eh

--Part One--

eh

Bob K:eh:Take a look at the unbolded type and tell me that nothing does not mean the absence of matter/energy.

I have stated repeatedly that the word ‘thing’ is overused and becomes therefore trivialized; therefore in Operational Physics I define nothing to mean the absence of matter/energy. And ‘nothingness’ would mean a condition of having no matter/energy present, a condition of being nothing, no thing.

Space has no structure.

For any ‘thing’ to have a structure, it must be comprised of matter/energy.

Space has no matter/energy.

Space has no structure.

Space is a pure vacuum except for those areas in there is the presence of matter/energy.

Gravity, being a form of matter/energy, can curve other forms of matter/energy.

A nonstructure, a ‘thing’ not comprised of matter/energy, cannot be curved by gravity.

Space, being a nonstructure, cannot be curved by gravity.

Bob K:eh:In OpPsych, nothing is defined operationally as I have defined it.

Bob K:eh:I will condense my ‘material’ when you get my message and I no longer need to repeat myself in order to present my ideas.

Bob K:eh:The First Law of Thermodynamics says that the energy of a system remains the same.

The First Law of Thermodynamics also says that the sum total of matter/energy is a finite number; it is not an infinite number.

Total means a final limit, a final number--a finite number--applied to describe a condition/situation/etc.

Thus, a sum total means all the amounts of matter/energy added together.

What do you think ‘sum total’ means?

In observed physical processes the quantity of matter/energy observed at the beginning has been the same quantity observed at the end, i.e., the quantity of matter/energy has not changed throughout the physical process.

Thus, as a general rule, the quantity of matter/energy in the universe, the sum total of matter/energy, is a constant, meaning whatever is the quantity of matter/energy in the universe that quantity never increases or decreases, and, thus remains the same.

Thus, the quantity of matter/energy has been, is now, and always will be, without beginning nor ending, the same, and finite.

Bob K:eh:True, we have not observed, to our knowledge, the overall energy of the universe.

But in your very words you are admitting that, by the use of the phrase ‘overall energy,’ that there has to be and is a finite limit to the quantity of energy, actually, the quantity of matter/energy, in the universe.

We know from observations of limited quantities of matter/energy that in the interchange of matter into energy and energy into matter, E = mc2 and m = E/c2, that matter/energy is not destroyed, but, instead, is conserved, meaning the quantity of matter/energy present at the end was present at the beginning, and, the reciprocal, the quantity of matter/energy present at the beginning was present at the end.

What we find in small quantities in a lab can often be extrapolated for large quantities.

We are therefore justified in extrapolating the findings from observations of small stuffs to big stuffs and therefore have supporting evidence for asserting that the quantity of matter/energy is finite, not infinite, and cannot be infinitely dispersed throughout an infinitely large space.

An infinitely large universe, actually, space, would not have an infinitely large quantity/amount of matter/energy.

Nothing you have presented thus far controverts my message herein.

Bob K:eh:Matter/energy cannot be dispersed into infinite space.

I never claimed that matter/energy is presently being dispersed into pre-existing space.

I said what I said: Matter/energy cannot be dispersed into infinite space.

If matter/energy is expanding, then it is expanding into pre-existing space, it is expanding into the pre-existing empty vacuum which is space.

If matter/energy is expanding, then it is expanding into pre-existing empty space and space is not expanding.

The infinite/unbounded area/arena/location/place/stage/theatre/space/volume/etc. which is space is not homogenous or isotropic. The dispersion of matter/energy is not homogenous but, instead, is clumpy, with areas/etc. of space having matter/energy present while other areas have not matter/energy present.

Bob K:eh:I repeat in this Reply the definition of space presented in a previous Reply and which you ignored:Note that your definition of space is not correspondent with The Oxford Dictionary of Physics definition of space.

I therefore distrust your definition of space. It does not appear to me to be representative of a definition of space on contemporary physics.

Regardless, because I have seen enough mysticism in physics I have developed Operational Physics to register my complaints and reasons for those complaints.

I require, and the Code of Science requires, operational definitions of terms to be used in science, thus for physics I intend to create operational definitions of terms I intend to use in OpPhys and which just might be valuable for physicists, if not now, then perhaps in the future.

By hard-nosed operational definitions the mysticism of modern physics can be greatly reduced if not completely eliminated. These ultimate definitions of physics terms definitions may not be my operational definitions, but they must be operational definitions nevertheless.

Bob K:eh:I have shown you a dictionary of physics, a 2000 edition, not some ancient, out-of-date edition, in which space is not defined as you claim physicists define it to be, but in which the definition is close to mine.

Thus, until proven otherwise, space is not the gravitational field.

Further, since matter/energy is limited in quantity, and gravity is a form of matter/energy, and matter/energy cannot be dispersed into infinite space, then gravity cannot be dispersed into infinite space; therefore, there will be areas of space which will be pure vacuums in which exist no matter/energy of any kind, and, thus and therefore, there will be areas of space which will be pure vacuums in which exist no gravity or gravitational effects of any kind. Thus and therefore, gravity/gravity fields cannot be expanded infinitely into infinite space. There ain’t enough matter/energy, and, thus and therefore, there ain’t enough gravity, to fill infinite space.

Bob K:eh:It is the definition of Operational Physics, OpPhys.

Bob K:eh:Incorrect; see above.

Bob K:eh:The sum total of matter/energy is a constant.

There is not enough matter/energy, including gravity, to fill all of infinite space, therefore there are areas of space which are pure vacuums and which therefore have no non-zero ground states.

Bob K:eh:Space is a pure vacuum except for those areas in which there exist matter/energy, and, therefore, in those areas, space will still exist as a volume but is filled with matter/energy and is therefore not a pure vacuum.

Physics, according to the dictionary of physics I have cited, does not define space to be a something comprised of matter/energy.

Bob K:eh:I am not afraid of taking on so-called ‘experts’ and ‘authorities’ regardless of who they are and what are their credentials.

When someone’s ideas are wrong, those ideas are wrong, and so long as the individual continues to expound those wrong ideas, he is wrong re: the content of those ideas.

It may very well take a layman to straighten out all this nonsense. It may take, therefore, a child to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

In a recent special edition of Scientific American dedicated to the subject of Time, the editors chose to include the writings and thoughts of philosophers because of the merits of those philosophers’ thoughts on the subject of time.

Thus, physicists are not necessarily the only individuals on the planet with potentially valid thoughts concerning time.

Bob K:eh:How many times do I have to replicate the definition of space from The Oxford Dictionary of Physics?

This definition clearly conflicts with yours.

It is closer to mine than yours, and i accept mine, for obvious reasons, therefore I reject yours.

Space is space. It has no structure. It has infinite dimensions/it is unbounded by dimensions.

The first law of thermodynamics says that the sum total of matter/energy is a constant.

A constant is a finite number.

Infinity is not a constant number. You can always add to it one more of whatever you are measuring/counting, as in the series T0, T+1, T+2, etc.

Therefore, a constant number is a finite number, therefore, the sum total of matter/energy being a constant, the quantity of matter/energy is a finite number and cannot be extended indefinitely, infinitely, into infinite space.

Gravity is a form of matter/energy.

Gravity is limited, finite, in quantity, therefore gravity cannot and will not be found everywhere in the infinity of space.

Space has no structure.

Structure requires matter/energy.

There is no matter/energy which is the structure of space.

There is matter/energy located in some areas of space, ‘floating’ in a volume of space, but there is no matter/energy dispersed everywhere throughout space.

Space is therefore not homogenous nor isotropic. Local areas of space may be homogenous/isotropic but not those areas of space, sometimes called ‘deep space,’ wherein there exists no matter/energy.

Matter/energy which has gravity imposes a gravitational field into space, but that does not change the fact that there is no ‘structure’ to space; all that happens when matter/energy exists in an area of space and that matter/energy has gravity as one of its forms of energy is that the matter/energy which has gravity imposes a field into space; no matter/energy, no gravity, no energy related to gravity, no gravitational field.

Get this once and for all: In OpPhys, space is not defined to be the gravitational field.

--End of Part One--

Bob K

--Part Two--

Bob K:eh:When physicists screw up definitions of terms used in physics, then non-physicists may have to straighten out those definitions and re-orient physicists.

Bob K:eh:If GR/QM disciples so define space as to not exist without matter/energy and therefore not as a vacuum, then GR/QM disciples have the responsibility to account for the fact that the sum total of matter/energy is a constant, a constant being a limited/finite number/quantity, and the fact that the OpPhys definition of space accounts for the ‘beyond’ which is beyond limited/finite/closed concepts of space, which are logical absurdities.

Try, seriously, to imagine infinity inside of a finity.

Require every point within the finity to have dimensions, length/width/height/depth/etc., and thereby occupy an area of that finity, and then require that once traversed a point cannot be traversed again, and you will soon find that there will be a decreasing number of optional paths to traverse within the finity until you reach a point beyond which you cannot travel without traversing previously traversed points, and at that point you will have to admit that the finity is no longer an infinity, and that there exist points, an infinite number of points, beyond the infinite finity, or beyond the finite infinity, or beyond whatever other word salad you want to use for labeling the absurd concept of a limited universe.

Bob K:eh:The first law of thermodynamics says that the sum total of matter/energy is a constant, a constant is a finite number, infinity, cannot be a finite number, and therefore infinity cannot be a constant number, etc., etc., etc., with the result that, because of the infinite dimensions of space, space having no boundaries of length/width/height/depth/etc., there have to be, and are, areas of space in which there are no forms of matter/energy, and with no forms of matter/energy you have no structure to space and therefore you have a pure vacuum.

I was previously told that the Casimir Effect is proof of the existence of something coming from nothing, and therefore a confirmation of GR/QM, but then I quickly realized that because electromagnetism, as well as gravity, is a form of energy, once there is energy, and there has to be energy present for the Casimir Effect to happen, we are not dealing with a pure vacuum prior to the appearance of the Casimir effect, and, therefore, the Casimir Effect is not proof of the existence of something coming from nothing and therefore is no proof of, confirmation of, any claims of something coming from nothing according to GR/QM theories.

Similarly, space and time and matter/energy have to be present prior to Big Bangs and after Big Crunches, therefore the universe, defined in OpPhys as the combination of the three realities of space, time and physics (matter/energy), is not created during a Bang nor eliminated by a Crunch.

If you do not believe that, then tell us all what lies beyond the singularity which ‘causes’ or ‘creates’ the universe? Space? Time? The matter/energy from which the singularity cometh?

A singularity does not have infinite dimensions. It has to have some length/width/height/depth/etc., as do all real physical phenomena, stuff comprised of matter/energy, of any kind.

Thus, no matter how small may be a singularity, it will not be infinitely small, it will have dimensions, and beyond its dimensional limits there will be a something that is space.

And in the infinite vastness of space, there well may be other local areas of Bangs/Crunches/singularities/etc., of which we are not aware and perhaps never will be aware because of the vast distances separating us from them.

Bob K:eh:The Oxford Dictionary of Physics we find the following:

Vacuum: A space in which there is a low pressure of gas, i.e. relatively few atoms or molecules. A perfect vacuum would contain no atoms or molecules, but this is unattainable as all the materials that surround such a space have a finite vapour pressure. In a soft (or low) vacuum the pressure is reduced to about 10-2 pascal, whereas a hard (or high) vacuum has a pressure of 10-2 [to] 10-7 pascal. Below 10-7 pascal [a vacuum] is known as an ultrahigh vacuum.

Vacuum State: The ground state in a relativistic quantum field theory. A vacuum state does not mean a state of nothing. Because one is dealing with quantum mechanics, the vacuum state has a zero-point energy, which gives rise to vacuum fluctuations. The existence of vacuum fluctuations has observable consequences in quantum electrodynamics.

Bob K:eh:Regardless of the current high priests of physics and their definitions of space, space remains a pure vacuum of infinite/unlimited/unbounded dimensions except for those areas in which there exists matter/energy.

Nothing comes from nothing; something comes from something.

If you find something comprised of matter/energy then you can safely, and correctly, assume that it is an effect caused by causes comprised of matter/energy.

The task, therefore, is to find the matter/energy which causes the somethings that appear to result from ‘vacuum fluctuations.’

If you do not get rid of false concepts/principles such as something can come from nothing, then you will overlook, never look for, the matter/energy, especially if of a type not currently observed and known, that is causing the something, and, therefore, you might overlook new forms of matter/energy and new laws of physics which can eventually help us understand the totality of physics and, eventually, again, the universe, and our place in it.

Therefore, there are no vacuum fluctuations.

Bob K:eh:The pre-existing and always-existing pure vacuum which is the unbounded space is a fundamental reality which cannot be ignored and therefore must be accounted for in any conception of the universe, of science, especially of physics, for it is the ‘home’ within which physics, matter/energy, must reside, and when matter/energy exists in a region of space, then that region, area, is no longer a pure vacuum, and any physical phenomena which appears will have been caused by the matter/energy present in that area.

If you do not know/understand/accept the fundamental realities of space/time/physics (matter/energy), then you will flounder in a mysticism that is worse than religion because you will be able to call upon observable facts and the opinions of ‘experts’ to support your contentions and appear to be correct in your conclusions until someone comes along and points of the falsity of your assumptions and the disconnect between your ‘facts’ and reality.

Bob K:eh:A ‘closed universe’ is a logical absurdity because of the reality that as soon as you place limits, physical limits, upon the ‘closed universe’ you must account for the ‘beyond’ which is clearly outside and therefore ‘beyond’ the limitations of the ‘closed universe.’

You cannot have a physical infinity within a physical finity.

Bob K:eh:Hey!

Foul!

Your description of ‘many different zones of galaxies, laws of physics, etc.,’ conforms to my vision of space/time/physics (matter/energy).

I have said, repeatedly, and, so it seems, ad nauseam, that because the quantity of matter/energy is a finite constant, as specified by the first law of thermodynamics, the finite quantity of matter/energy cannot be dispersed into an space of infinite dimensions, that, therefore, there have to be areas of space which are pure vacuums and contrasted with areas of space in which exist matter/energy, of some kind, including potential kinds not currently observed, understood, and known, and this description coincides, whether you admit such or not, with your ‘many different zones ...’ description of the universe.

Bob K:eh:My contention is that there are areas of space which are pure vacuums because they contain no matter/energy and there are other areas of space which are not pure vacuums because they contain matter/energy.

Nothing comes from nothing and something comes from something.

When you observe, when you see/hear/touch/etc., a physical phenomenon, a something-or-other comprised of matter/energy, you can safely assume that it came from prior/pre-existing matter/energy, which is why the Casimir Effect is not proof of something coming from nothing.

Nothing, the presence of no things comprised of matter/energy, is a pure vacuum, no matter/energy present, no structure, just empty space, a volume which is infinite in dimensions of length/width/height/depth/etc. unless there is matter/energy present, and, since matter/energy is infinite in duration but finite in quantity, and since a finite quantity of matter/energy cannot be infinitely dispersed into the infinity of space, those areas of space in which matter/energy is present are localized, and therefore limited in physic dimensions, beyond which is the pure vacuum which is space.

Bob K:eh:I repeat in this Reply the definition of space presented in a previous Reply and which you ignored:Also from The Oxford Dictionary of Physics we find the following:

Vacuum: A space in which there is a low pressure of gas, i.e. relatively few atoms or molecules. A perfect vacuum would contain no atoms or molecules, but this is unattainable as all the materials that surround such a space have a finite vapour pressure. In a soft (or low) vacuum the pressure is reduced to about 10-2 pascal, whereas a hard (or high) vacuum has a pressure of 10-2 [to] 10-7 pascal. Below 10-7 pascal [a vacuum] is known as an ultrahigh vacuum.

Note the assertion that a ‘perfect vacuum would contain no atoms or molecules,’ which is the pure vacuum I have been referring to.

I note that the full statement is thus: A perfect vacuum would contain no atoms or molecules, but this is unattainable as all the materials that surround such a space have a finite vapour pressure.

I have been saying that because the sum total of matter/energy is a constant and therefore is a finite quantity, a finite number, and therefore cannot be an infinite quantity describable only by an infinite number, and that, therefore, because the quantity of matter/energy is finite, limited, matter/energy cannot be dispersed infinitely into an infinite volume, an unbounded space, etc.

Because matter/energy cannot be infinitely dispersed into a dimensionless volume, there must be areas of space in which there is no matter/energy present of any kind and those areas will qualify to be perfect/pure vacuums.

Therefore, the statement that a pure/perfect vacuum is unattainable is a false statement.

Vacuum State: The ground state in a relativistic quantum field theory. A vacuum state does not mean a state of nothing. Because one is dealing with quantum mechanics, the vacuum state has a zero-point energy, which gives rise to vacuum fluctuations. The existence of vacuum fluctuations has observable consequences in quantum electrodynamics.

This definition is a false definition.

In OpPhys, a pure vacuum is specified to be an area of space in which there is nothing, no person/thing/event present comprised of matter/energy.

Pure vacuums in space must and therefore do exist because of the finite quantity of matter/energy and the resulting fact that a finite quantity of matter/energy cannot be dispersed infinitely into an infinite volume/vastness/etc. of space.

eh

I see you're still not learning anything. Yet, you still feel to need to post 100 lines of text for something that could be said in 2 lines. Can you please stop doing that?

Yeah, just like it's the job of creationists to correct those evil evolutionists when they screw up. It's a good thing the scientific community has non scientists like yourself to straighten them out, and I'm sure they appreciate it.

Once again, this is just plain wrong. But since you cannot conceive of an infinite universe (cosmologists must be wrong again, since they say it is possible) we will keep the topic of a finite universe. The universe would have a finite amount of energy, but the density does not need to be conserved. You have yet to show any reason why energy density is conserved. In regards to your claim that a finite universe expanding forever is absurd, is again answered by the fact that a finite universe will collapse in the future.

And to once again answer the question of what lies beyond the closed universe, once again basic logic says there would be no beyond to speak of. That means no outside, and no need for infinite space. You have not come up with a single logical reason why your concept of an infinite vacuum must exist.

There is no beyond, if the universe is finite. You have yet to formulate a single valid argument against such a finite spacetime.

Better tell that to the experts in the field who say the universe could in fact have an infinite amount of energy. But I guess you know better, with your non education in physics.

Christ, can you not read? I already showed you that the vacuum fluctuations are not something coming from nothing. It just means that there is energy in the vacuum, and this is known as the ground state of the universe. The definitions you provide below actually support this definition of a vacuum, which makes seriously think you have a problem with reading.

Space, time, and energy are all one in the same. We have a spacetime that is entirely based on the contents of the energy within. You definition once again is incorrect.

If you did any reading at all on modern cosmology, you'd know that few actually believe singularities exist in reality. They are only a product of incomplete mathematics. That is to say, general relativity cannot describe what happens at quantum scales, and so we get the nonsensical ideas of the singularity. It is expected that a complete theory of quantum gravity will show that there was clearly something prior to the big bang. Also, reading of cosmology and physics would make you aware of concepts such as inflation, which can explain how a universe with galaxies could evolve from a vacuum.


Since singularities are not real, the point is moot.

Those definitions of the vacuum are correct. None of those definitions support your definition as an absolutely empty space. There are vacuums without atoms or molecules, but the second definition tells you that there is indeed something there.
Bob K:

Only in your delluded world.

Again I must ask, can you not read? Did you not read the previous posts in this thread? I never said VF's are a case of something from nothing. Read carefully, please.

That does not follow at all, since you're obviously unable to read the actual posts.

You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you're no better than a creationist that comes to these boards attacking strawman versions of evolution. You are simply attacking concepts that don't actually exist in physics.

The pre-existing and always-existing pure vacuum which is the unbounded space is a fundamental reality which cannot be ignored and therefore must be accounted for in any conception of the universe, of science, especially of physics, for it is the ‘home’ within which physics, matter/energy, must reside, and when matter/energy exists in a region of space, then that region, area, is no longer a pure vacuum, and any physical phenomena which appears will have been caused by the matter/energy present in that area.[/quote]

You still have yet to present any evidence, or even any logical reason why such an infinite empty vacuum must exist.

I'll ask again. Evidence?

If you know any basic logic, you would see there would be absolutely no "outside" or "beyond" the talk about. I don't see why you find that to be a problem.

No it doesn't. These zones, if they exist, would still exist in spacetime. And as I've already explained, spacetime is the gravitational field of the universe.

How many times are you going to repeat that? Space is either finite or energy is infinite. Take your pick.

But QM says there are no such regions in our universe. I'm thus asking why you would think the existence of this vacuum outside the physical universe is plausible at all, if not redundant.

Another strawman.

I have already heard your definition of a vacuum. But science tells us that such a vacuum does NOT exist anywhere in our universe. The fact you seem to think that the uncertaintly principle only has something to do with our ability to measure energy distribution, is a stumbling block. You do not understand the basic idea of quantum theory, and thus you believe empty regions of space are possible.

[quote]I repeat in this Reply the definition of space presented in a previous Reply and which you ignored:

Also from The Oxford Dictionary of Physics we find the following:

Vacuum: A space in which there is a low pressure of gas, i.e. relatively few atoms or molecules. A perfect vacuum would contain no atoms or molecules, but this is unattainable as all the materials that surround such a space have a finite vapour pressure. In a soft (or low) vacuum the pressure is reduced to about 10-2 pascal, whereas a hard (or high) vacuum has a pressure of 10-2 [to] 10-7 pascal. Below 10-7 pascal [a vacuum] is known as an ultrahigh vacuum.
[quote]

And for the third time I will ask if you can read. This definition is acceptable, and does not support your claim.

But Bob, such vacuums DO exist. There are vacuums in space where no atoms are present. But there is still energy there, and this is what allows virtual particle pairs to form (hence the casimir effect) from this vacuum. This is the vacuum state as well.

You can find a vacuum without any atoms present. But you cannot find a vacuum without energy present.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Read up on QM and then come here to make a fool of yourself. Perhaps Hooked on Phonics would be a better place to start.