Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the Fabric of space made out of?
Fabric
Member (Idle past 5671 days)
Posts: 41
From: London, England
Joined: 02-27-2005


Message 16 of 284 (189492)
03-01-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LDSdude
03-01-2005 11:49 AM


Re: fairenough
Ok thanks people for all your comments , i did try to google my question but i just got information about general relativity & not pacific anwers to my question.
Maybe it was a bit of a silly question but i could not find the answer any where else, im happy with the conclusion that space is just that , space , & its not made of anything, its just a massive void where natural laws take place. Cheers Fabric
This message has been edited by Fabric, 03-01-2005 19:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LDSdude, posted 03-01-2005 11:49 AM LDSdude has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 03-01-2005 4:34 PM Fabric has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 17 of 284 (189493)
03-01-2005 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
02-28-2005 8:35 PM


Re: and is there a fabric softener?
Hi Abbey,
RAZD writes:
("branes")waving around in a 5D (or more) superuniverse collide *causing* the "bang" event
OOOOHHMMMM!!!! I'm telling!!!! you used the "C" word!!

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2005 8:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2005 8:14 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 284 (189512)
03-01-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fabric
03-01-2005 2:56 PM


A book
I'm just starting to read my ( ah em, autographed) copy of "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. He is a very clear speaker and writer but somehow I think just what "the fabric" is may still not be answered by the end.
I can recommend reading it if you are really interested in the topic. So far he is covering a lot of the historical ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fabric, posted 03-01-2005 2:56 PM Fabric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 5:03 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 194 by gnojek, posted 03-24-2005 4:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 284 (189514)
03-01-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by NosyNed
03-01-2005 4:34 PM


Re: A book
quote:
I'm just starting to read my ( ah em, autographed) copy of "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. He is a very clear speaker and writer but somehow I think just what "the fabric" is may still not be answered by the end.
It may not be answered. What I find interesting (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that space can be quantized as the Plank length and Plank time, the shortest units of distance and time. I find that very interesting, if I am understanding it correctly.
Another interesting phenomena, at least to me, is that the constant pi changes in large gravity wells, such as that found in black holes. Just another example of reality running counter to human intuition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 03-01-2005 4:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Xeriar
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 284 (189532)
03-01-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
02-28-2005 9:53 PM


RAZD writes:
according to our frame of reference and with the assumption (which currently appears correct) that the speed of light is unchanged even by passage of such great distances (where one can envisage light never reaching from one to the other, and thus a limit to the knowable universe regardless of it's true size), but
is that the only explanation?
It could also be just how messed up things get when we bring in relativity on this kind of level. If something was 500,000 light-years away when it shot this portion of the Milky Way a light pulse, then it should have passed this portion of the Milky Way 500,000 years ago.
Time dilation and Lorentz contraction might explain that some, but I've got a headache and don't feel like running the math :-p
In any case, it is an observation that, on average, galaxies are moving apart from eachother at a rate of 71 kilometers per second per 3.26 million light years (megaparsec). So it fits the model of an explosion, in any case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2005 9:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2005 8:19 PM Xeriar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 284 (189548)
03-01-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by 1.61803
03-01-2005 3:00 PM


Re: and is there a fabric softener?
LOL. I wouldn't want to create too much confusion here (as the joker said to the priest), but I was trying to be a little more sensitive than the article ...
The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.
(emphasis mine)
from Space.com
'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
heh.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by 1.61803, posted 03-01-2005 3:00 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 284 (189550)
03-01-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Xeriar
03-01-2005 6:46 PM


a real mind-bender?
you have two galaxies departing for destinations unknown, and in the process the light from one is left behind such that at the time that it passes galaxy #2, the 1st galaxy is moving away from #2 faster than the speed of light ... and thus from it's own light as well ...
... has it's light has sped up?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Xeriar, posted 03-01-2005 6:46 PM Xeriar has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 284 (189560)
03-01-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Fabric
02-28-2005 4:03 PM


Re: just curious
Ok i understand that , cheers, but if before the Big Bang there was an absolute nothing then space was created spontanously from the Big Bang then space has to be made out of something to exist , do you see what im trying to say here, i know space is a void but surely to exist it has to be made out of something? Or maybe not, i dont know thats why im asking. cheers Fabric. Ok i understand that , cheers, but if before the Big Bang there was an absolute nothing then space was created spontanously from the Big Bang then space has to be made out of something to exist , do you see what im trying to say here, i know space is a void but surely to exist it has to be made out of something? Or maybe not, i dont know thats why im asking. cheers Fabric.
1. As an ID (intelligent design) creationist I see space as existing static boundless area in which everything in the universe exists. That is, it, imo, does exist, yet at the same time consists of nothing and is incapable of expansion/stretching.
2. I discussed this space thing with Silas on the great debate thread following the buzsaw/jar great debate which can be read in the archives. If I understood Silas correctly, he contends that space consists of a "sea" of particles. I quoted a web site which agreed with him, but put it that space contained these particles, to which Silas seemed to pshaw as a poor usage of the terms. I still see anything, including particles as stuff existing within space and not as being inclusive in defining space. Silas will hopefully come on and correct me if I've missunderstood him in the above.
3. My understanding is that the hypothesis of expanding space is based on the redshift effect of distant objects as viewed from afar. Others say it's the particles in the cosmos which causes the redshift effect. I know there's a lot more to it than this brief statement on it. Someone will surely correct me if I have missunderstood the positions here.
Xeriar's quote here below seems to say it all.
I doubt science will offer much of an explanation before we get a Grand Unified Theorem, and that seems an unfortunate distance off.
I say until it can be explained, it's suspect, regardless of the contention by evolutionists that it's scientifically substantiated.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-01-2005 21:30 AM

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Fabric, posted 02-28-2005 4:03 PM Fabric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Sylas, posted 03-02-2005 1:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 24 of 284 (189577)
03-02-2005 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
03-01-2005 9:27 PM


Re: just curious
buzsaw writes:
1. As an ID (intelligent design) creationist I see space as existing static boundless area in which everything in the universe exists. That is, it, imo, does exist, yet at the same time consists of nothing and is incapable of expansion/stretching.
Every creationist I have ever spoken to (other than buzsaw) speaks of a universe with an origin in time.
Those who put this origin within ten thousand years or less reject just about the whole edifice of science; including cosmology with its 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang singularity.
Otherwise, old earth creationists have welcomed the Big Bang model, for its implications of the origin in time for the universe. There is some criticism of the model from within the scientific community, but over recent decades it has become more and more marginalized as evidence for the Big Bang model continues to accumulate. The funny thing is that what little rejection remains is mostly from atheists who have a strong philosophical objection to the Big Bang, precisely because it involves an origin in time; and they object to this as a creationist notion.
Many intelligent design creationists have also welcomed the fine tuning argument, which is particularly strong in Big Bang cosmology.
This is a minor point; buzsaw is welcome to advocate his particular theological notions for what kinds of universe are consistent with his God; but he is a very unusual intelligent design creationist!
2. I discussed this space thing with Silas on the great debate thread following the buzsaw/jar great debate which can be read in the archives. If I understood Silas correctly, he contends that space consists of a "sea" of particles. I quoted a web site which agreed with him, but put it that space contained these particles, to which Silas seemed to pshaw as a poor usage of the terms. I still see anything, including particles as stuff existing within space and not as being inclusive in defining space. Silas will hopefully come on and correct me if I've missunderstood him in the above.
You have misunderstood this one. It's complicated. I do not say "consists of"; but rather say that there is no such thing as empty space, because the "vacuum" turns out to be seething with virtual particles. Buzsaw is probably referring to the posts where he cited papers about the interstellar medium, and confused this notion with the virtual particles notion. I pointed out this mix-up in the discussion.
I don’t think space consists of anything in particular, and the term fabric is a metaphor which that I consider rather misleading.
Unfortunately the search facility is not working; otherwise I would have pointed you to the posts in which this was discussed.
3. My understanding is that the hypothesis of expanding space is based on the redshift effect of distant objects as viewed from afar. Others say it's the particles in the cosmos which causes the redshift effect. I know there's a lot more to it than this brief statement on it. Someone will surely correct me if I have missunderstood the positions here.
That’s a pretty good statement.
Cosmological redshift is the major line of empirical evidence for expansion. There are some alternative ideas, some of which correspond to a tired light model. Some of the tired light models involved the reddening of light due to interactions with particles, or other more exotic interactions. The tired light model has been disproved by supernova light curves, and the particle interactions model for tired light has also been disproved by resolutions available for high red shift objects. There are still a few people trying to defend this model, but it is now quite solidly falsified.
Xeriar's quote here below seems to say it all.
I doubt science will offer much of an explanation before we get a Grand Unified Theorem, and that seems an unfortunate distance off.
I say until it can be explained, it's suspect, regardless of the contention by evolutionists that it's scientifically substantiated.
The Grand Unified Theory (not Theorem), if we ever get such a thing, will basically be a model able to probe back into the very earliest times, even before 10-47 of a second from the singularity, where a quantum theory of gravity is required. It’s not required to substantiate the basic facts of expansion, which are a fairly straightforward consequence of classical physics. Any grand unified theory will need to reduce to classical physics as a good approximation; just as Einsteinian physics reduces to Newtonian physics as a good approximation. This means any GUT will still need to continue to explain well established phenomena like elliptical gravitational orbits, relativistic dilation effects, and relativistic expansions of space.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 03-01-2005 9:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2005 9:27 PM Sylas has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 284 (189694)
03-02-2005 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fabric
02-27-2005 3:29 PM


Did you have something like this on mind?
Fabric of Reality (book cover link)
quote:
A new, integrated and rational world view based on four main strands:
Quantum physics and its many-universes interpretation
The theory of evolution (Darwin/Dawkins)
The theory of computation (quantum computation)
The theory of knowledge (Karl Popper), explanation and understanding
some content links and some commentary on the book
He argues that quantum computation, a discipline in which he is a pioneering thinker, has the potential for building computers that draw on their counterparts in parallel universes; this could make artificial intelligence a reality, despite Roger Penrose's objections (which Deutsch deals with in some detail). Likewise, time travel into both the future and the past should be possible, though not in quite the form envisioned by science fiction writers; the trips would almost certainly be one-way, and they would likely take the travelers into different universes from the one they began in.
A review contra what I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fabric, posted 02-27-2005 3:29 PM Fabric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by berberry, posted 03-04-2005 1:31 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 284 (189701)
03-02-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Sylas
03-02-2005 1:47 AM


Re: Sylas's statements.
Every creationist I have ever spoken to (other than buzsaw) speaks of a universe with an origin in time.
Those who put this origin within ten thousand years or less reject just about the whole edifice of science; including cosmology with its 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang singularity.
1. Yes and I've not whipped up the Buzsaw Hypothesis for the occasion of debate here. It's been with me for decades as has been some other unpopular stuff. I don't work at being different. Since a kid I've read, thought and prayed a lot in search of truth, understanding, wisdom and knowledge. I believe God hears my prayers though the more I seem to come to understanding, the more at odds I seem to be with scientific and theological academia. I've not been educated, imo, to the point of having conformality of thought programed into my mind.
2. The Buzsaw Hypothesis, though at odds with both BB science and YEC creationism, better satifies both TD 1, relative to origins and TD 2, relative to entropic tendency than either BB science or YEC creationism, imo.
3. The Buzsaw Hypothesis, imo, is not only more literal Biblically than YEC creationism, but a whole lot more logical relative to the nature of God as put for in the scriptures of the Bible. I would welcome any YEC member to debate this.
Otherwise, old earth creationists have welcomed the Big Bang model, for its implications of the origin in time for the universe. There is some criticism of the model from within the scientific community, but over recent decades it has become more and more marginalized as evidence for the Big Bang model continues to accumulate. The funny thing is that what little rejection remains is mostly from atheists who have a strong philosophical objection to the Big Bang, precisely because it involves an origin in time; and they object to this as a creationist notion.
Yes. Absolutely. This's why creationists, for the most part get trounced here. They are, imo, neither Biblically fundamental nor do they have a better hypothesis than that of secularists. I attended a lecture by a PHD physicist (I believe he was from the Smithsonium Institute, but not necessarily representing their viewpoint) some 20 or so years ago at a College near me, lecturing as to how the BB could be God's method of creating the universe some 20 billion years ago. At the end of the lecture questions from the audience were opened up. I raised my hand and asked what God was doing for all eternity before the BB, 20 billion years being nothing but a teeny speck of time relative to eternity. He, of course, like the secularist had no answer to the [/i]before problem[/i].
This is a minor point; buzsaw is welcome to advocate his particular theological notions for what kinds of universe are consistent with his God; but he is a very unusual intelligent design creationist!
......And don't forget those scientific aspects of the Buzsaw Hypothesis, as per the Great Debate. It's not 100% theological. At least as much was debated about observed TD laws as was theology in that debate.
You have misunderstood this one. It's complicated. I do not say "consists of"; but rather say that there is no such thing as empty space, because the "vacuum" turns out to be seething with virtual particles. Buzsaw is probably referring to the posts where he cited papers about the interstellar medium, and confused this notion with the virtual particles notion. I pointed out this mix-up in the discussion.
1. Ok, can we analyze these two statements of yours?
Sylas quotes:
A. "I do not say "consists of"; but rather say that there is no such thing as empty space,"
B. "the 'vacuum' turns out to be seething with virtual particles."
Aren't you saying, in effect, that space is seething with virtual particles?
And aren't you then also saying either that space consists of virtual particles or that virtual particles occupy space? Which is it, and if neither, how so?
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-03-2005 00:25 AM

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Sylas, posted 03-02-2005 1:47 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Sylas, posted 03-03-2005 1:28 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 27 of 284 (189730)
03-03-2005 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
03-02-2005 9:27 PM


Re: Sylas's statements.
2. The Buzsaw Hypothesis, though at odds with both BB science and YEC creationism, better satifies both TD 1, relative to origins and TD 2, relative to entropic tendency than either BB science or YEC creationism, imo.
TD1, maybe; but TD2, definitely not. Discussion on this point has been a bit confused, with irrelevancies about "infinity plus one". TD2 means energy tends to disperse and dissipate, which is a problem in infinite universe models. This has been done to death by various posters; not always very well it must be said.
For the rest, I agree that your hypothesis is more reasonable than YEC.
Sylas quotes:
A. "I do not say "consists of"; but rather say that there is no such thing as empty space,"
B. "the 'vacuum' turns out to be seething with virtual particles."
Aren't you saying, in effect, that space is seething with virtual particles?
And aren't you then also saying either that space consists of virtual particles or that virtual particles occupy space? Which is it, and if neither, how so?
The latter. I am indeed saying that space is seething with virtual particles. They flash in and out of existance, all the time. Each individual virtual particle only lasts a very short time before being anihiliated again. But all of space is filled with them, so they occupy space, and space (vacuum) is not really empty.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2005 9:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2005 9:31 PM Sylas has replied
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2005 9:41 PM Sylas has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 284 (189913)
03-03-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Sylas
03-03-2005 1:28 AM


Re: Sylas's statements.
before inflation space would not be populated with the seething particles yes?
and at the end of all things when the clock of entropy has taken it's last tic, would not space once again be lacking the seething masses?
one wonders if such empty space is more prone to inflationary episodes than our current space? is there a possible sequence of repeating universes, not so much from the {big bang \ big collapse \ big bang} type of old but a {bang \ rundown \ bang} where new universes continually occur within the dried husk remains of the previous one?
is there anything that would prevent that from happening? is there any reason to think that only one can occur at a time?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 03-03-2005 21:34 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Sylas, posted 03-03-2005 1:28 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Sylas, posted 03-03-2005 9:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 284 (189920)
03-03-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Sylas
03-03-2005 1:28 AM


Re: Sylas's statements.
The latter. I am indeed saying that space is seething with virtual particles. They flash in and out of existance, all the time. Each individual virtual particle only lasts a very short time before being anihiliated again. But all of space is filled with them, so they occupy space, and space (vacuum) is not really empty.
Ok, now that we've established that these particles occupy space, doesn't this mean that space itself, perse is absolutely nothing but area in which things exist?

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Sylas, posted 03-03-2005 1:28 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Sylas, posted 03-03-2005 9:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 30 of 284 (189925)
03-03-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
03-03-2005 9:31 PM


Re: Sylas's statements.
before inflation space would not be populated with the seething particles yes?
and at the end of all things when the clock of entropy has taken it's last tic, would not space once again be lacking the seething masses?
No in both cases, as far as we can tell. At least, there is no reason to think any such thing.
one wonders if such empty space is more prone to inflationary episodes than our current space? is there a possible sequence of repeating universes, not so much from the {big bang \ big collapse \ big bang} type of old but a {bang \ rundown \ bang} where new universes continually occur within the dried husk remains of the previous one?
is there anything that would prevent that from happening? is there any reason to think that only one can occur at a time?
That's getting pretty deep. Andrei Linde, one of the world's foremost cosmologists, has speculated on such notions; and others even more weird than this. He has speculated that new inflationary domains could be forming right now, all the time, throughout space. For example, if an infinitesimal region inside your own body suddenly inflated into a whole new universe, you would not notice a thing; because it does not push any other spaces aside as it expands. In fact, Linde has speculated this is going on all the time; the mother of all multiverse models.
It's just a speculation; and would be very hard to test. His major work is in inflationary cosmology, but the variation I mention above is not his major idea; just a side line of some strange things that might be going on.
Interestingly, Linde is one of those atheists I mentioned early who seems to have philosophical concerns about an origin in time. However, he is also a first rate scientist. He is not particularly dogmatic on these matters; but he does seem to be in search of a way to get rid of the troubling origin to time implicit in cosmology, while still recogizing that all evidence at present clearly indicates that the universe as we know it expanded from conditions in which conventional physics becomes singular, about 13.7 billion years ago.
He has done a long of stuff on chaotic inflation and eternal inflation which are a bit more relevant here. These also infolve new inflationary domains starting up all the time; but not within our already inflated domain.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2005 9:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2005 9:08 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024