Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the Fabric of space made out of?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 284 (191211)
03-12-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by NosyNed
03-12-2005 1:39 AM


Re: Feynman's lectures.
This, that you call nonsense,
I think you missunderstood my winkeyed observation, Ned. It was you, not me, who at least implied that nonsense is ok with physics, was it not, when you said, " thinking that physics has to make 'sense?" I took your comment here as to mean physics doesn't have to make sense implicating, imo, also, that what doesn't make sense implicates nonsense.
Then I asked that you address my post 63, which has somewhat to do with common sense and logic, and which nobody seems to want to do. My realplayer takes a long time to load up in my slow system. I'd like to listen to it if I can get it up and will respond if and when I can get it to work. From the topics however, it didn't appear to be addressing my post problem directly, since photons are not a factor in the problem which I posed concerning space void of everything. It appears that it's beyond what you can address in your own words. Is that the problem?
In the mean time I'll see what I can do to get my realplayer working.
Thanks to Sidelined for the link.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2005 1:39 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2005 8:00 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 94 by Sylas, posted 03-12-2005 9:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 92 of 284 (191213)
03-12-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
03-12-2005 7:50 PM


Re: Feynman's lectures.
if you have any trouble with any freeware, the best thing I find is to uninstall it and then download a new version.
the freeware version of realplayer is available at
RealPlayer.com\Realplayer (click here for the download page}
You want the one in the gray sidebar (the other is a premium version that costs money for some (to me dubious) upgrade abilities).
These lectures are worth listening to, if for no other reason than to see what Feynman was like.

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 91 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 7:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 9:50 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 103 by Fabric, posted 03-13-2005 11:49 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 93 of 284 (191216)
03-12-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
03-07-2005 12:04 AM


Answers for Buz
You pointed us at this post 63 (Message 63) and said that no one had answered it.
I think it has been but maybe we shoud try again.
Space isn't made of anything that we experience on a normal basis. It isn't electrons and quarks, it isn't forces. Spacetime just is, it has certain properties. If you ask what it is "made of" then the answer is that it is made of something that has those properties.
It isn't material stuff like your desk and it isn't forces like a magnetic field. We don't have a word for it other than it is "spacetime".
You haven't asked what you or your desk are made of but deep down inside they aren't made of anything any more "real" than spacetime is. It is All an illusion that we live in.
I'm sorry I misunderstood about your "nonsense" comment. You are right; physics is ok with "nonsense" that is part of the point that Feynman is making in his lectures. All of what we think we live in is not what is really "there". What "really" underlies it all we don't understand in the way we would like to. It doesn't connect to our ordinary experiences so our words and our minds get muddled.
However, we can describe the behaviour of this "nonsense" very well. So we understand something about it. Something useful. It is amazing that in the last century we have gotten this far. Will we get to a better understanding in the next century. Feynman answers that at the end of the first hour with some like "I got a past Nobel prize not one for the future. I don't know"
All others:
I highly, highly recommend listening to these lectures Feynman was a master. I was lucky enough to attend a live lecture once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 03-07-2005 12:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by sidelined, posted 03-12-2005 9:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 94 of 284 (191218)
03-12-2005 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
03-12-2005 7:50 PM


Re: Feynman's lectures.
Then I asked that you address my post 63, which has somewhat to do with common sense and logic, and which nobody seems to want to do.
I responded to Message 63 in Message 66.
I'm getting a bit fed up with this, frankly. Common sense isn't all that common, and logic is a disciplined way of drawing out the consequences of your initial assumptions.
Science works not by logic, or common sense, but by careful examination of the natural world, and development of models or theories that put observation into a consistent explanatory framework. Some scientists have observed that it is deeply significant or surprising that this program works. There is no reason in principle why the universe should be describable in terms of simplified abstractions or natural laws; but there you go. It is a feature of the world, as far as we can tell, that there are deep basic regularities and consistencies, which allow us to use abstractions like natural law to describe how the world works.
Some of the conclusions we derive conflict with common expections formed by normal experience. What this means, basically, is that looking very carefully at the natural world reveals details that enable us to give more accurate models than those we form just by intuition and common sense. Real sense recognizes this.
Some folks... you, for example, buz... simply cannot accept the discoveries of science and want to set up their own common sense intuitions as an alternative and as a basis for rejecting stock standard conventional scientific discoveries. This is not logic.
Your criticisms of science are uninteresting, because you don't really know what you are criticising, and are not able to express a coherent criticism that takes into account the empirical observations that are the foundations of science. You can get an internally consistent notion for an alternative universe of your own making... your own common sense, that is. But it fails to match the universe we live in, and which (from a theistic perspective) was made by God.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-12-2005 21:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 7:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by sidelined, posted 03-12-2005 9:46 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 10:19 PM Sylas has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 95 of 284 (191219)
03-12-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by NosyNed
03-12-2005 8:38 PM


Re: Answers for Buz
NosyNed
I highly, highly recommend listening to these lectures Feynman was a master. I was lucky enough to attend a live lecture once.
I have pretty much devoured anything written by him{or about him} and I am sending away for the lectures on physics and gravitation to see if I cannot really kick up my understanding of things by ,say, a factor of a thousand.
It is a damn shame that we lost a mind of such clarity and insight{not to mention wit}and I think the best lesson of his life was the curiousity that he always kept about the world. What an incredible feeling it must have been to have had such a grasp of so much of the actual workings of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2005 8:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 96 of 284 (191222)
03-12-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Sylas
03-12-2005 9:00 PM


Re: Feynman's lectures.
Sylas
Some folks... you, for example, buz... simply cannot accept the discoveries of science and want to set up their own common sense intuitions as an alternative and as a basis for rejecting stock standard conventional scientific discoveries
I am not sure this is the case at all Sylas. It is likely that the life he has lived has not exposed him to a great deal of the necessary tools for delineating facts from fancy.It is also quite possible that the understandings he does have are not correct to begin with.
If we were to start with simple concepts such as laws of motion and the consequence of those laws before taking it up a notch and gradually fill in the misconceptions that I am sure are there we would at the least be able to have some good debates that we could possibly use simple experiments to demonstrate with.
This I believe is easier than trying to convince Buz of the veracity of quantum mechanics or general relativity.Since we do not have access to gravity probes or particle accelerators it cannot begin to be possible to show how the model bears out in tests of these theories.
Anyway it is just a thought to consider eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Sylas, posted 03-12-2005 9:00 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 284 (191223)
03-12-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
03-12-2005 8:00 PM


Re: Feynman's lectures.
if you have any trouble with any freeware, the best thing I find is to uninstall it and then download a new version.
the freeware version of realplayer is available at
RealPlayer.com\Realplayer (click here for the download page}
You want the one in the gray sidebar (the other is a premium version that costs money for some (to me dubious) upgrade abilities).
These lectures are worth listening to, if for no other reason than to see what Feynman was like.
Thanks Razd. Unless I don't have something set right, it appears that's what I will need to do.
However, I did get it up and painstakenly listened the best I could for about 35 minutes. My realplayer staccatoes, or maybe a better word is skips it's way through the lecture and you get a partial word, skip, then the rest of the word, et al. I got much of what Feynman was saying but would really like to hear him better. I see what you mean by if for no other reason than to see what Faynman was like. He definitely appears to be an interesting, as well as an entertaining, lecturer, easy to listen to (with proper apparatus).
As the titles implicated, however, what I heard, the lecture didn't address my post 63 space problem, perse. Rather it was about things and forces existing within space.
So as I understood what I could decipher from my distorted realplayer message it took about 20 years from the time the theory of quantum electromagnic concept's introduction to any measurable understanding of the concept/theory and as of 1979, he uses phrases like, "......It's just a theory,.......... I don't understand it either, and ".....realize that nobody understands it." He did say that much progress had been made from 1948 to 1979 and I'm sure much has been added to the theory's progress since the lecture.
I guess the bottom line remains in my mind that from what I'm getting here and from what I've read and heard so far is that nobody's ideology really has a corner (to use a commodity market term) yet on the mystery of space. Imo, the problem is that scientists are obfuscating the simplicity, common sense and logic of it so as to mystify it, complicate it and redefine it to lend support the BB theory.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-12-2005 22:24 AM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2005 8:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 03-13-2005 6:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 03-13-2005 8:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 123 by Trae, posted 03-15-2005 4:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 284 (191230)
03-12-2005 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Sylas
03-12-2005 9:00 PM


Re: Message 63
I responded to Message 63 in Message 66.
I'm getting a bit fed up with this, frankly. Common sense isn't all that common, and logic is a disciplined way of drawing out the consequences of your initial assumptions.
I appreciate that you responded, but what in your message 66 answers the following two questions as posted in message 63?
buz exerpt:
The problem I see in your explanation is that you are, before doing things in/with space adding things like circle boundaries, light, gravity, magnatism, et al relative to your work of measurement and your observation and conclusions. If the universe had none of the above in it and absolutely nothing else, including nothing to make it bounded/bind it, i.e. boundless void, what is there to do anything like curving and stretching. For example, how could there be anything to effect gravitation in an absolute boundless void? As per your explanation it appears that your measurements and observations of space is relative to the items you mentioned in that explanation.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Sylas, posted 03-12-2005 9:00 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Sylas, posted 03-13-2005 2:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 03-13-2005 8:29 AM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 99 of 284 (191250)
03-13-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
03-12-2005 10:19 PM


Re: Message 63
The measurement of space is essentially the measurement of distances. In modern physics, space is not necessarily Euclidean. One consequence is that if you draw a circle, and measure the radius and circumference, the ratio may not be pi. It is a property of the space, quite independent of whether or not there is a physical object in the shape of a circle, or just a mathematical abstraction for distances in spacetime.
In modern physics, space and time are connected; we speak of spacetime since times and distances depend on how you look at it. The one thing which does not vary for observers is the "metric"; which is why we use it. Anyhow, to take an example where time and space are linked: consider an expanding space. This means that distances between things will increase as time passes. It is not a property of the things, but of the spacetime in which they exist. It is not local velocity because points at sufficiently large separations may separate faster than any local motion could compensate.
All this has been explained before. It is not a measurement of the things in spacetime, but a measurement of spacetime itself. You can, in fact, speak of distances and curvature and so on in empty space; using Einstein's tensor. That gets a bit hairy, so to visualize it, it helps to imagine things in space. But it really is a property of the spacetime, not the things in it. To describe without objects, you are left with maths, and such things as the circle and radius. Just maths, and a metric for empty space to describe its geometry.
You can't accept this? Fine. But that is how modern science represents the matter. It is not illogical. It may violate YOUR intuitions, but that is not something that is going to worry anyone except someone possibly your teacher; a position I decline to accept.
Your description of what I am doing in the extract from message 63 is incorrect. You'll never understand it until you accept that I mean what I say.
Spacetime has properties like curvature and expansion that are aspects of the spacetime itself. The consequences of curvature and expansion can be seen by looking at objects in space, but the models which represent what is seen do not treat this as aspects of the observed objects, but of the spacetime in which they exist. Older models, trying to capture this aspect of modern physics using velocity of objects and so on, are nineteenth century falsified models; useful as an approximation in some limited contexts but fundamentally inaccurate.
The scientific models I am describing have a metric tensor for empty space, that represents things like curvature and expansion as intrinsic to the space.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-13-2005 02:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 10:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 100 of 284 (191264)
03-13-2005 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Buzsaw
03-12-2005 9:50 PM


Re: Feynman's lectures.
it sounds like your problem is the buffering. try a different bandwidth setting on the realplayer (you need to match incoming signal to your bandwidth speed ability, this is another place that reinstalling helps, as some new software is able to sense the speeds rather than rely on hard input).
you can also try downloading the whole clip to your hardrive and then playing it from there (you are usually given a choice of [open with default (realplayer)] or [save to hard drive] - if you do the later, save it to desktop and then double click on it to launch realplayer)
you can also go to realplayer menus {view}{preferences ... } and the tab {connection} you can reset these values, and also set it to buffer the whole clip to memory before playing (takes longer to start, but should reduce the stutter)

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 97 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 9:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 101 of 284 (191273)
03-13-2005 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Buzsaw
03-12-2005 9:50 PM


Re: Feynman's lectures.
RAZD has some good suggestions, but there's a much simpler one to try first. The lecture may be downloading to your computer at roughly the same rate you're listening to it. Everytime you catch up you get a brief pause while the RealPlayer buffer accumulates some more lecture. Try starting the lecture, hitting pause, then walking away or reading your email or something for five minutes (don't walk away for an hour, you'll lose your channel). When you come back there will be enough lecture buffered that it won't stutter anymore.
RAZD's suggestion of playing with the bandwidth settings is the better way to address this problem, but there are some sites that seem immune to this setting. In other words, the videos at some sites, even though they let you choose between high, medium and low, and even though you play with your bandwidth settings, still stutter no matter what. These Feynmann lectures aren't prone to this problem on my computer, but different computers and OS versions and ISP connections may experience things differently.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 03-13-2005 08:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 9:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 102 of 284 (191275)
03-13-2005 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
03-12-2005 10:19 PM


Re: Message 63
Science chooses between competing theories based on which best explains observations. In his reply to this message, Sylas mentioned expansion as a measured property of space. Does your model of space take expansion into account?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 10:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Sylas, posted 03-13-2005 4:11 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 105 by Sylas, posted 03-13-2005 4:11 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2005 5:44 PM Percy has not replied

  
Fabric
Member (Idle past 5672 days)
Posts: 41
From: London, England
Joined: 02-27-2005


Message 103 of 284 (191285)
03-13-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
03-12-2005 8:00 PM


Re: Feynman's lectures.
Hi there RAZD, i watched that link about the properties of light & i just wounderd if you knew of any other lectures on real player or quicktime about quantum mechanics or space in genral, i found it very interesting, cheers. or if anybody else does that reads this message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2005 8:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 03-13-2005 8:47 PM Fabric has not replied

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


Message 104 of 284 (191298)
03-13-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
03-13-2005 8:29 AM


Re: Message 63
(Stuffed up post.)
This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-13-2005 16:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 03-13-2005 8:29 AM Percy has not replied

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


Message 105 of 284 (191299)
03-13-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
03-13-2005 8:29 AM


Re: Message 63
Percy writes:
Science chooses between competing theories based on which best explains observations. In his reply to this message, Sylas mentioned expansion as a measured property of space. Does your model of space take expansion into account?
It's worth being careful about how this works. The major evidence for cosmological expansion is cosmological redshift; with the cosmic microwave background as a special case of extreme redshift. Buzsaw has previously acknowledged this. We don't measure space directly on the scales required to see expansion; we only observe things already out in space, and use them to infer distances and geometry.
Now there are some alternative models for redshift; and buz has cited some of them. But they are failed models, falsified by the details of the evidence. There are still some isolated persons considering such models; but they are few and far between. The most credible attack on conventional models has been the attempt to show physical associations of high and low redshift objects; but even this has no real legs, since the evidence for associations is very weak; most astronomers think it is entirely coindidental alignments in the sky. This criticism also offers no alternative explanation; if confirmed it would also falsify scattering and tired light models.
The alternative explanations for cosmological redshift are such things as "tired light" and scattering. These models are emphatically and decisively disproved by evidence such as the perfect blackbody sectrum of the CMBE (which rules out scattering) and the time dilation effects seen in supernova light curves (which rules out tired light AND scattering).
The upshot is; we have a basic model for spacetime and gravity, called general relativity. This is tested eighteen ways from Sunday, and passes all tests with flying colors. This model involves a geometry on spacetime; curved space. The curvature of space is observed in various ways; most notably bending of starlight. The gravitational time dilation seen in satellites is also a kind of curvature.
A consequence of the model is that spacetime on cosmological scales is dynamic; it either expands or contracts. The nice stable flat space fitting normal intuitions is an unstable solution to the equations. And we observe precisely the redshifts expected by a space expanding according to the general relativity.
So expansion and curvature of space are scientific models, represented by the metric tensor defining the geometry of space itself without any reference to object in space; and connected with gravity by Einstein's equation and the Einstein tensor.
We cannot measure space directly on scales beyond the solar system; we can only observe what objects are already out there and use them to infer distances and geometry. The observations are all consistent with the relativistic model, and they falsify all the alternatives like tired light or scattering.
Scientifically speaking, it is an open and shut case.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 03-13-2005 8:29 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-15-2005 2:39 AM Sylas has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024