The infinite space of the Universe

quote:

---

Were there no matter, etc existing, the universe would consist of only endless boundless infinite space/area in which nothing exists since this boundless area is inclusive in the term/word universe.

---

How can 'space/area' exist w/o matter, and how would you determine and identify such? - what instrumentation would you use, which is not itself matter? What is water without water; - or what is a hole without the hole? It becomes semantical, as opposed science.Thus, if we can see or percieve space, even if we can imagine it - it is not nothing but something. I see space as the final frontier between the corporeal and non-corporeal, the space bed being made of the rarest, smallest, oldest, deepest forms of matter; it's particles probably have only has one side - its other side being non-corporeal, and representing only that which is not uni contained.

Light essence, namely a pre-star light, predated photons. Photons are a later occurence, and is the factor which produced luminosity, which is varied from light per se. Light is massless, and ageless - the latter factor disqualifies photons, which are not ageless but has a very limited lifespan.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

The origin of the word "photon"

​

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

​

-Gilbert N. Lewis, 1926

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

-American Heritage Dictionary

​

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

​

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

The Conservation of Photons.

​

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

In this case we have the vacuum of spacetime existing rather than absolute nothingness (no dimensions, no time etc. etc.)

​

Whether or not the same sort of principle can be applied to the origin of the universe as a whole is much more speculative.

---

No demensions, no time, etc. This says that nothing we determine as universe contained = nothingness. Here, I cannot see any alternative other than an external [Creator?] impacting factor being applicable. This cannot be dismissed solely because the word Creator is used, because it means science and logic itself points at this premise - by the process of elimination.If there is nothingness, and then something emerged, and performs mechanical feats such as the universe structures - there is no alternative of an external factor applying. In fact, even if there was space, and nothing else within that space, and something happens - it still becomes only possible by an external triggering.I would like someone to explain any credible alternative applying, because my premise is not based on theology, but a logical deduction; there is no scientific theory to apply, because there is nothingness - no forces, energy, matter, light, heat/density variations, particles or fluctuations of any kind. No cool breeze either - just nothingness.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is no edge of space. Go back to the analogy of the surface of a sphere (put a sock in it IaJ). Remember, there is no up or down.

---

Ok, I wont say the surface is the edge, or that the sphere is the earth below. There is no edge in space - but there is if you were outside the edge, no?

I wont go there - I'm not into talibanic science. But, before enlightening about space, do you except space is a post-uni product, or did it 'ALWAYS EXIST' - which violates the finite universe premise. The preamble rules.

The problem with the BBT is, while there is no other known knowledge of the uni origins - this is not in itself a reason to accept the BBT. Basically, the BB is a brylcream kid's definition, namely if space is expanding this-away, it must have come from that-away, and if everything in space is getting bigger, it must have started at a smallest point. It is back zooming of some inferences.The negative factor of the BB is that it avoids the non-negotiable factor of an external impact applying.

quote:

---

I'm going to dodge the bullet.

---

I must have asked a scary question. Just to make it even more interesting - unbounded has no relationship with un-ending.My confusion is, are you not confused when speaking of the universe origins, without first stating a preamble, like which universe are you discussing - a finite or infinite one - like as if this is a superflous factor?