eh

And also agree with a flat, spatially finite universe, no?

NialScorva

There are a fair number of infinities that pop up from time to time in physics, but they're usually infinitely small rather than infinitely large.

Friar Bellows

I don't see any reason why the universe couldn't be one giant vaccum, totally devoid of matter. It becomes a particularly easy solution to the Einstein field equations in that case. But there would still be vaccum fluctuations, so in that sense it wouldn't be devoid of energy (and even matter I suppose, given the temporary existence of virtual particles). Hey, maybe you're right.

Sure we can define a universal time! Cosmologists do it in the Big Bang model. Since space can be viewed as homogeneous and isotropic (at least on the large scale), the mean density and pressure are functions solely of the world time, which can be thought of as "the proper time kept by each of a dense set of observers, each moving so all the others are isotropically moving away, and with the times synchronized to a common energy density, rho(t)". I got that quote out of a Peebles paper, by the way.

eh

Well Friar, yes, a vacuum contains energy at every point, so is something. But I'm really only arguing against Bob's idea that space is nothingness, and not even from science. The idea of a void in this sense, is not logically consistant. If you've seen some of his other threads on space, you'll see what I mean.

As for universal time, I am guilty of a bad choice of language. I should not have said there is no universal time, but rather, no absolute time. The universe is 15 billion years old, relative from this point in spacetime. This is in contrast to the old, Newtonian concept of absolute space and time.

Bob K

eh: I have never heard anyone define space to be matter/energy, or the relationship of matter/energy.

Matter/energy = matter/energy and space = space, and the two are different.

Matter/energy exists in space, but space is not matter/energy.

Moreover, you have not specified what is the relationship of matter/energy that creates space.

eh: I am not 'into the concept of an aether.'

A pure vacuum is 100% empty, not one person/thingevent therein.

With the limited quantity of matter/energy, there have to be areas of space in which there is no matter/energy and, therefore, there can only be a pure vacuum.

For a pure vacuum to exist in one area of space all of space does not have to be devoid of matter/energy; for there to be a pure vacuum an area of space only has to be free of, devoid of, matter/energy, which ought to be easily conceptualized and understood and accepted because of the infinity of space and the finity of the quantity of matter/energy.

I have made every effort to describe space as a pure vacuum EXCEPT for the presence of matter/energy.

I have, therefore, described exactly what space is, and if you don't get it, or you don't accept it, that's irrelevant to the fact that space is not, and cannot be, comprised of matter/energy.

Matter/energy is present in space, but does not define space.

Matter/energy, though infinite in duration, is finite in quantity. The sum total of matter/energy is a constant. With a limit to the quantity of matter/energy, and no limit to the dimensions of space, a pure vacuum except where there is the presence of matter/energy, there have to be many areas of space where there is no matter/energy and, therefore, only a pure vacuum.

The concept of a field, an energy field, in space, requires acknowledgement of the presence of matter/energy, and the reciprocal of all this is that if matter/energy were not present, space would be a vast pure vacuum of infinite dimensions and duration.

eh: My point is that time is a concept that exists without substance, an idea, but nevertheless a concept which can be made real by the use of time-intervals for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

Physicists do not have a conception of time that makes any sense. Time is not defined by clocks which are constructed to produce variable time-intervals. Time does not slow down because a clock slows down; not does time speed up if a clock speeds up. When invariable time-intervals are used, time is independent of the motion of a timepiece, a clock, and is therefore independent of space.

I am showing you three realities, and three infinities of those realities, and how they interact while yet being independent.

Space, and area of space, is a pure vacuum unless matter/energy is present; when matter/energy is present in an area of space, that area of space is not a pure vacuum.

Time is the measurement of the occurrences of events by the use of time-intervals.

Time does not define nor interfere with the events, or the occurrences of events; time is used only to measure when the events occurred. Time, the concept of time, and the use of the concept and principle of time, is thus independent of space, and matter/energy.

True, timepieces are constructed of matter/energy, but what they are constructed of does not require a restriction on what time is.

Matter/energy fills certain areas of space, but not all areas, since space is infinite in dimensions whereas matter/energy is finite in quantity. Fields in space, produced by matter/energy, do not change what space is, a vast emptiness, and infinite void, an unbounded place wherein matter/energy could exist, in certain limiited areas. There is no fabric to space; matter/energy may impose energy fields in space, but it cannot impose energy fields upon the substance of space, because space has not substance, it is simply an area.

There is a mysticism in physics that is almost as irrational as religion, and the interdependence of space and time and matter/energy is a part of that mysticism.

I am now showing you what the universe really is, the three realities that comprise it. When you see the universe as it really is, the mysticism of physics will begin to disappear.

eh: If you had read my words carefully, you would have gotten the message that I am not denying the Bangs and Crunches could have occurred in the past and may occur in the future. I stated very clearly that because of the infinite duration and dimensions of space, the infinite duration of time, the infinite measurement of time, and the infinite duration of matter/energy, that the universe, comprised of the spatial reality, space, the temporal reality, time, and the physical reality, matter/energy, existed prior to any Bangs, and existed after any Crunches, and, thus the universe could not have been created in a Bang nor destroyed in a Crunch.

Nothing from nothing/something from something.

Something existed prior to a Bang, and something existed after, survived, a Crunch, and that something was the universe.

Space IS the nothingness I think it is. And that is exactly my point concerning the spatial reality, space. It is a pure vacuum except in those areas in which matter/energy is present.

As an object present in a box is independent of the box, only being present in it, so is matter/energy present in space independent of space [remember that space is unbounded, unlike a box], and as time is only the measurement by time-intervals of the occurrences of events, it is not dependent on the geography of space and thus is independent of space.

Once you understand the true nature of space, time and matter/energy, you will realize once and forever that the concept of a closed space is pure nonsense, because of the fact that anytime you place a limit on space, which is a requirement for closed space, you bind space, space is no longer unbounded in dimensions, and there will always be the problem of accounting for, describing in coherent words, what is beyond closed space.

Space cannot be curved. A field in space can be curved, but not space itself.

Thus, curved space, closed space, etc., are all myths in physics.

It's time to get rid of myths in physics.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

eh

On Space

So read up on modern cosmology. The internet is a big place for information, you know.

No, this is just a limitation of the english language. We say matter exist in space, but that is just a figure of speech. But cosmologists do not say there is some underlying space that matter/energy floats in.

Space is not a thing that the relationship creates, but IS the relationship. Think of the universe as a finite field with a discrete energy value at each point in it. This is the universe, and there is no external "space" the field is sitting in.

This is illogical, but I'll go into more detail on that below.

Quantum mechanics says otherwise. There is non thermal radiation at every point at space, and this energy of the so called "vacuum" has been verified by experiment.

-----Snipped text-------

Your definition of space is not supported by cosmology, quantum theory, or even plain logic. Where are you getting your information from, if not pure intuition?

On Absolute Time


Events cannot happen without energy, and so there is no such thing as time without it. The ticking of a clock is not a measure of some absolute time, just the speed of the atoms making the thing work.

If time is merely a concept to describe the events as you described above, then it follows that time would have no existence without those events. I don't see why you find this a view that makes no sense. How would you explain the fact that time dillation occurs, and has been verified by experiment?

----Snipped text, type less, Bob---------

On the big bang, nothingness and logic

The big bang, by definition was not an explosion into a pre existing empty space. I don't care if you you believe that it is, I can assure you it's not. Your version of the big bang is not what the actual theory holds, so you might as well get another name for it.

Wow Bob, we actually agree on something in this thread. But you should know that even cosmologists who hold the universe had a beginning, do NOT believe it came from a prior state of nothing.

This is wrong and easily disproven with a little logic. Let's take a look at your statement that space is nothing.

You are saying that space is nothing. Since anything that exists is a 'thing' by definition, saying space is nothing means space does not exist. Yet you also claim that 3D space is infinite and DOES exist.

So you have a statement where space exists, and does not exist at the same time. This is illogical nonsense, and no more possible than a circle square.

Again, this is illogical. If this 3D space exists, then by definition it is a thing. In such a case, the space cannot be empty, and certainly not "nothingness"

AND....

And I think it's time for you to learn some logic, and read some books on cosmology and quantum mechanics.

All your objections to modern cosmology are based on your illogical concept of space. Unless you want to argue that circle squares are possible, you're going to have to show how your "nothingness" space is logically consistant. Otherwise, we can leave the old notion of space in the garbage where it belongs.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>

Answerer

Hmmm, are you talking about the 'size' of an electron here?

Answerer

Wow, Bob K, your reply is sooo long.

Anyway, guys, thanks to Bob k and Eh, I now have a new question in my head. We all know that space and time must exist 'together' and the same thing applies for energy-matter but can spacetime exists without matter-energy?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

eh

It could exist as a quantum vacuum, that is with a cosmological constant but no matter.

Bob K

eh:

Bob K: eh: My point: Space is not comprised of matter/energy. If you are hearing this for the first time, get over it and get used to it. Space = matter/energy is another myth of physics that does not make sense and has to be destroyed.

Space is a pure vacuum in those areas in which matter/energy is not present. Space, being a vast emptiness, is larger than the finite quantity of matter/energy.

Logically, there have to be places in space in which matter/energy is not present, therefore those areas have to be pure vacuums.

I have no fear of cosmologists who do not make sense to me, especially when I have a conception of space that makes sense.

Remember that my theory is based upon known properties of matter/energy as found in thermodynamics:

The sum total of matter/energy is a constant. Interpretation: the quantity of matter is finite, a finity, although the duration of matter/energy is infinite, an infinity.

Matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only changed in form. E = mc2 and m = E/c2. Interpretation: Matter/energy, because it cannot be destroyed, is infinite in duration, an infinity unto itself and therefore totally independent of space and time.

Bob K: eh: Space is a pure vacuum, defined as totally devoid of matter/energy, in those areas in which there is no matter/energy.

Matter/energy is finite in quantity [thermodynamics]; space is infinite in area, therefore, logically, not all of space is full of matter/energy.

To claim otherwise is to claim that matter/energy is not limited, finite, in quantity, a finity, but, instead, has to infinite in quantity, an infinity, which is a logical absurdity.

Bob K: eh: Here you are proving yourself to be illogical.

The universe is not a finite field. Being comprised of space/time/matter/energy, the universe is infinite in spatial dimensions, infinite for the measurement of time, and has limited areas in which matter/energy is present, because, although matter/energy is infinite in duration it is finite in quantity and therefore cannot be present everywhere in an infinite space.

If there is a finite field which is the universe, then there is an area of space beyond that field, because of the conflict of the finity of the field vs. the infinity of space.

The finity of the universe because it supposedly has to conform to field concepts is one of the myths of physics that has to be destroyed, otherwise physics becomes as silly as religion.

One more time: The finite quantity of the universe as you have defined it to be, a field of energy, conflicts with the infinite/dimensionless vastness/emptiness of space. Beyond the energy field you describe is space. Therefore, the energy field you describe is in fact floating in space.

Bob K: eh: Bob K: eh: Energy = energy, no matter its form.

Thermodynamics: The sum total of matter/energy is a constant: Interpretation: The quantity of matter/energy is finite, limited, not infinite, not unlimited.

There can be no energy present at every point in space. This is a myth of physics that has to be destroyed.

Space, being infinite, has no limit to the number of points we can assign to it, each point, remember, has to have physical dimension, or, otherwise, if it is infinitely small, or large, we are dealing in nonsense.

Matter/energy, being finite in quantity, cannot be distributed in space in infinite points of space. There can be no infinite energy points in space because energy, one form of matter/energy, is limited in quantity and therefore cannot distributed infinitely.

If you have what you think is a pure vacuum and find energy in it, you do not have a pure vacuum, you have, instead, an ‘impure vacuum’, a vacuum made impure by the presence of energy, energy of some kind, even of a kind not presently known, which is why we must destroy myths in physics or we might overlook new forms of matter/energy, as what might be the explanation for the energy you claim is vacuum energy, an oxymoron.

When you find energy in what you think is a vacuum, you do not have a vacuum, not pure vacuum.

I define a pure vacuum as an area of space, no matter how small, or large, in which there is no matter/energy to be found, no matter/energy present.

Bob K: eh: Pure intuition based upon an understanding of matter/energy based upon laws of thermodynamics, confirmed by E = mc2 and m = E/c2 (Einstein’s original formulation), an understanding of what is, and has to be, a pure vacuum, a conception of unlimited, unbounded space, and a conception of time overlooked by Einstein and others based upon invariable time-intervals.

Once again, Einstein, on page 99 of his book, Relativity, stated thus: Mechanical clocks serve for the definition of time.

Mechanical clocks, and now atomic clocks, are typically set up with variable time-intervals and will show measurements of variable time-intervals, intervals varying with changes of velocity/gravity, with corresponding varying face readings.

To my knowledge, Einstein never addressed the possibility that his conception of time would be controverted by the requirement for the use of invariable time-intervals, which, when used in clocks, would produce the same face readings, the same measurement of invariable time-intervals, everywhere in space, and, thus, establishing universal time, absolute time, the spaceclock showing the same time elapsed/face reading as the similar earthclock.

Is time dilated because a clock’s rate of functioning, its rate of operation, its measurement of variable time-intervals, varies with velocity/gravity?

When you compare the rate of functioning/operation/measurement of time-intervals for a clock set up with invariable time-intervals, regardless of changes of velocity/gravity there is no dilation of time, time is thus, when measured using invariable time-intervals, the same everywhere, universal time, absolute time.

The ITI and ITICs give us a clear understanding of what is the infinity of time, the unlimited duration in time, the unlimited face readings/measurements of invariable time-intervals, that enables us to understand the infinite duration in time of space and matter/energy, thus, time has to be, and, logically, is independent of space and matter/energy when measured using ITIs, by means of ITICs.

Bob K: eh: True, events cannot happen with out energy, but the event of the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events is at first an abstract concept made concrete by the use of invariable time-intervals but remains independent of the events being measured.

QM essentially says we have a problem observing small stuff without disturbing that small stuff.

If we could be Perfect Observers, POs, and able to observe small stuff without disturbing it, then we would find predictability at the level of individual elementary particles.

If, likewise, we were POs observing and measuring events without disturbing the things which are the stuffs of those events, this time of any size, in sequences of events, by invariable time-intervals, then we would have universal time, absolute time.

By the way, Niels Bohr suggested that if we were to measure the variation from the original path of a small stuff disturbed by observation, then we could nevertheless measure that variation and determine the previous future of that small stuff. This is a solution to the problem of observing without disturbing small stuff.

Bob K: eh: Time has an existence as an abstract concept that would eventually be discovered and used/made concrete by organisms or machines when measuring the occurrences of events in sequences of events, in histories, becomes necessary.

The point of the theory of invariable time-intervals is that when such ITIs are used in ITICs variations of velocity/gravity because of matter/energy is no longer a factor and time thereby becomes independent of matter/energy and space, an infinity unto itself.

Bob K: eh: I have read statements by physicists that space, time and matter/energy are created in Bangs and destroyed in Crunches, therefore, taking these statements at face value, there is a myth in physics that something could come from nothing, and I am working to destroy that myth, and the theory of invariable time-intervals is part of that effort.

If, as you claim, physicists are stating that, yes, space, time, and matter/energy all exist prior to Bangs and after Crunches, that is news to me.

No doubt most of us who are atheists or agnostics are aware that religionists seem to have no problem with claiming that someone can come from nothing, forgetting that their god is a something and not a nothing, and must exist prior to a Bang and beyond a Crunch.

I am herein substituting what is known, and knowable, space/time/physics [matter/energy] for the religionist ‘god’ and thereby asserting what is the universe and its infinite space, infinite time, and infinite duration, in time, and space, of matter/energy but the finite quantity of matter/energy, in space, and in time.

Bob K: eh: Again, your statement is news to me.

But, herein, nothing coming from a prior state of nothing is exactly what I am claiming for a pure vacuum: there can be no energy, no field, no energy field, no force field, in an area of space which is a pure vacuum, in which there is no matter/energy of any kind.

If you can conceptualize something from something and nothing from nothing for what had to exit prior to a Bang and after a Crunch, then surely you are capable of conceptualizing space as nothing, from which nothing can come, matter/energy, of some kind, perhaps a kind not presently observed and known, as the something from which something comes, with space being the place in which matter/energy exists, and time as the independent measurement by invariable time-intervals of the comings and goings of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy.

Bob K: eh: You trip yourself on your own logic.

WE have, in fact, a problem with the overuse of the word ‘thing.’

‘He did the right thing/wrong thing ... ‘ is a reference to an action, an event, involving relationships of things comprised of matter/energy to each other.

‘He thinks the wrong thing ...’ is a reference to a thought, an idea, not a person/thing/event comprised of matter/energy.

If a ‘thing’ is defined to be a person/thing [object]/event comprised of matter/energy, then space as not comprised of matter/energy is not a thing, it is not an object. It is pure nothingness that can be measured but cannot be measured to a limit, bound, because it is limitless, unbounded.

Space is therefore the unbounded area/arena/location/place/theatre/etc. which would be a pure vacuum except for those limited areas/etc. in which matter/energy is present.

Are we logical to call a pure vacuum a thing? Are we logical to restrict the use of the term ‘space’ to being descriptive of a condition, a condition of pure vacuum except where there is found matter/energy? Are we therefore logical to not label space a ‘thing’ but, instead, call it a condition, a state, a state of existence, a state of being, etc.?

I think so.

Therefore, space is a condition of a pure vacuum, vast emptiness, pure nothingness, etc., except in those areas/etc. in which we find matter/energy.

Bob K: eh: Whose definition claims space is a thing?

I certainly have not defined space to be a thing.

To me, a thing is, is defined to be, and therefore is, an object comprised of matter/energy, an identity having a longer duration in time than related events.

An event is a relationship, a condition, a state of existence, of being, in which objects relate to each other, especially when some things/objects which are causes cause/create other things/objects which are effects.

Get rid of the objects, the events, get rid of the matter/energy which comprises those things. objects, events, and you have space, a pure vacuum.

And, better understand that things and events are independent of time, not controlled by the measurement of their occurrences by the use of invariable time-intervals.

Bob K: Bob K: eh: I HAVE read such books, and am familiar with enough of the logic and mythology of relativity and QM to have developed the theory of invariable time-intervals and the theory of the three realities which comprise the universe and, the reciprocal, the theory of the universe as being comprised of the three realities.

Do you deny that time is measured using time-intervals, howsoever arbitrary those time-intervals may be?

Do you deny that there are two types of time-intervals, variable time-intervals and invariable time-intervals?

Do you deny that Einstein used ONLY variable time-intervals in developing relativity?

Do you deny that invariable time-intervals can be used to define and measure universal/absolute time?

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>