That the standard model does not deal with and makes no statement about any relations of the finite to the infinite is what you claim, my friend, and I have to take the validity of that assertion on trust. Well, I do not take it on trust. Let us examine the content of your claim a little further. To point out to me what is it in your view the standard model is dealing with and is making statements about really you condescendingly enlighten me that it is the evolution of the universe instead. Well, my friend, the notion of evolution belongs to the realm of the finite while the universe firmly remains in the category of the infinite. Thus the fatal flaw of the model is clearly demonstrated in your own words here. The nature of that fatal mathematical flaw is attributing to the infinite all the qualities of the finite in the manner described in my initial post you had the courtesy to completely miss the meaning of, my friend.
quote:Well, my friend, the notion of evolution belongs to the realm of the finite
I don't see why, I can describe the evolution of infinitely large systems mathematically, so there is no a priori relationship between being finite and evolving.
quote:while the universe firmly remains in the category of the infinite.
Why does the universe belong in the category of the infinite?
quote:Thus the fatal flaw of the model is clearly demonstrated in your own words here.
No, what has been displayed is: (a)An assertion that evolution is related to finite things. (b)Another assertion that the universe is in the category of the infinite.
quote:The nature of that fatal mathematical flaw is attributing to the infinite all the qualities of the finite in the manner described in my initial post you had the courtesy to completely miss the meaning of, my friend.
Well it is very difficult to understand your first post, since it contains statements like "Infinity is expressed with a zero", which to me reads as a non-statement like "The colour of black is white".
To your question whether it would be better if they spent their time building the cathedrals on foundations more real...well..that is hard to tell. Take the spiritual music. The subject matter there is God. Even if you do not believe in God, you may still appreciate the genius that is in the music. Moreover, it is still related to and is expressing the human emotions and the human condition which are real indeed. In the same way Hawking's mathematics are well related to the tangible gravity, energy, motion, rest, time and space and the rest of the real physical attributes of existence. Even if the black holes and big bang, dark matter and energy are pure fictions like God, angels and the saints in heaven.
I thought the music analogy was a good one in relation to the nature of communication. Also as an example of something that can be translated precisely through mathematics and not precisely with language.
Comparing Mozart’s inspiration with a logical mathematical conclusion seems to fall a little short of the ground itself. Seeing a shadow and assuming that something is blocking the light is not the same thing as seeing a ghost.
So, then, is the concept of a 'void' only a concept? An impossible one at that. Can we logically conceive a 'place' where no 'thing' exists?
As we have seen, space-time is itself a thing, and can quite happily exist with nothing else in it.
So there I was, merrily hacking away at my Lucasfilm perception of the universe, when it occurred to me.
If it is true that no thing actually 'touches' anything else, what is left between two things that are not touching? Does the alpha field or Higgs field or space/time occupy this space? Does this field occupy the space between electrons and their nucleus? Does this field make contact with anything?
Do you see where I am going with this? If nothing makes contact with anything else there must be some kind of unoccupied space. No?
If it is true that no thing actually 'touches' anything else, what is left between two things that are not touching?
Not the way to think about it. Think of space as an ocean (the fields), and "things" as waves (field excitations). Everything is ocean, both the things, and the space between the things.
That is a total reification of space. Space in that poetic description sounds to be the primary substance of existence and not a mere shadow motion casts as I understand it to be. No wonder that in your theory space can easily move on its own and in a fashion perfectly independent of anything else.
Discussions are like storms that tempest to and fro across an ocean region that often extends beyond the boundaries of the topic, but as long as the topic still anchors the discussion this is not a problem. It cannot reasonably be expected that every message or sequence of messages be on-topic, but we can't have gusts of discussion taking off for parts unknown.
Or for another analogy, discussions are like solar systems with planets of focus that stay relatively close to the central topic represented by the sun, and while the occasional excursion out to the Oort Cloud is fine (the question about fabric of space in the case of this thread), we can't have pieces of the discussion blasting off for Andromeda (Mayer's ideas).
Of course. That is inevitable as soon as you take Minkowski's work and allow the fixed metric to become a function of space-time position, as with General Relativity.
The past 100 years of quantum field theory simply enforces this view.
No wonder that in your theory space can easily move on its own and in a fashion perfectly independent of anything else.
No wonder indeed.
That's to do with the nature of these two dimensions. Though upon reflection it is clear that the two are inseparable and equivalent, they are by no means identical. Time appears to be so much more elusive and when thinking of locating things it is space that comes to mind first so it is easier to associate space with rest and permanence while identifying time more with motion and change. Either may be indispensable for both motion and rest yet when I try to conjure up the idea of timeless space, my mind at least is coming with something, even if that something is impossible as any physical reality. In the case of spaceless time the mind simply draws blank. Time itself has no volume to fill up with any shapes.
Way I see it is, the original point enlarged, namely its diameter increased and keeps doing so. At all tmes we are inside the original expanding point. I see all space and all things contained in the universe as not new but part of the original point, defrayed in new and varied terms. The space is created as is needed, simultainiously with any expansion. There is no space outside the universe - this would violate the finite factor.
Well, that's not a bad start. But you're in danger of thinking that the Universe has a bounding edge. And you need to start thinking more 4-dimensionally, seeing time as just another physical dimension. Do that, and many of your questions in the other thread will be answered or rendered obsolete.
It's better admit that the terms the Universe and expansion are not compatible. Your might as well talk about the colour of mass. Ex means out, the universe has no outside so it cannot expand for the same reason that mass cannot have colour.