This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
infiniterealism · 51-55, M
@Sicarium I think they say that it's expanding extremely fast.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sicarium and @infiniterealism, no.
As long as Science currently know there is no thing that is physically "infinite". The concept is only valid in Math and even there taken with "care".
What is said here is that Space [b]is not at all [/b]an empty container of a certain geometric dimmenson wich [b]where[/b] matter exists.
If you take away matter (of course no one can) there would neither be Space.
[b]Expansion is not at all matter expanding within space.
What is expanding is Space itself together with matter.
They not expand INTO something else[/b].
That Spacetime is all what it is.
As long as Science currently know there is no thing that is physically "infinite". The concept is only valid in Math and even there taken with "care".
What is said here is that Space [b]is not at all [/b]an empty container of a certain geometric dimmenson wich [b]where[/b] matter exists.
If you take away matter (of course no one can) there would neither be Space.
[b]Expansion is not at all matter expanding within space.
What is expanding is Space itself together with matter.
They not expand INTO something else[/b].
That Spacetime is all what it is.
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@CharlieZ You have some fundamental misunderstandings.
Space and spacetime are the same thing. Spacetime is a distortion from mass in the universe. If you took away all mass, you would still have the universe, just in a different form. The universe is the canvas. Mass and spacetime are the painting on that canvas. The universe, the canvas, itself is expanding. That expansion started with, presumably, the big bang. That expansion is increasing in rate. Therefore, the universe itself is finite, as in limited to how far it could've expanded since the big bang.
Space and spacetime are the same thing. Spacetime is a distortion from mass in the universe. If you took away all mass, you would still have the universe, just in a different form. The universe is the canvas. Mass and spacetime are the painting on that canvas. The universe, the canvas, itself is expanding. That expansion started with, presumably, the big bang. That expansion is increasing in rate. Therefore, the universe itself is finite, as in limited to how far it could've expanded since the big bang.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 Thank you, my friend.🌹
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sicarium That´s not at all the conception of Space of Relativity, the best one we have till now for that scale.
In Relativity (even since the earlier Special one) space itself began at the Big Bang.
There was nothing previous.
Not at all matter expanding within a pre existing wider universe.
What expands is the universe itself, space includded.
That is, there is nothing else than what expands.
Space and matter build (and exist as) a gravitational Field.
That, my friend, is Physics.
Not mere Philosophy.
In Relativity (even since the earlier Special one) space itself began at the Big Bang.
There was nothing previous.
Not at all matter expanding within a pre existing wider universe.
What expands is the universe itself, space includded.
That is, there is nothing else than what expands.
Space and matter build (and exist as) a gravitational Field.
That, my friend, is Physics.
Not mere Philosophy.
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@CharlieZ [quote]That´s not at all the conception of Space of Relativity, the best one we have till now for that scale.
In Relativity (even since the earlier Special one) space itself began at the Big Bang.[/quote]
I don't know what you're trying to say.
[quote]There was nothing previous[/quote]
Correct. Not even the canvas of the universe. Vacuum energy and quantum mechanics tells us that. Universe can be created, and universe can be destroyed. It has to in order to keep up with expansion. That's annother point indicating a finite universe.
[quote]Not at all matter expanding within a pre existing wider universe.[/quote]
Matter itself isn't expanding. That will only happen far in the future, assuming the big rip is accurate. And that's a major assumption. We'll hit entropy long before then.
[quote]Space and matter build (and exist as) a gravitational Field.[/quote]
There's nothing in known science to support that claim. And anti-matter directly contradicts the claim.
[quote]That, my friend, is Physics.[/quote]
Mmkay...
In Relativity (even since the earlier Special one) space itself began at the Big Bang.[/quote]
I don't know what you're trying to say.
[quote]There was nothing previous[/quote]
Correct. Not even the canvas of the universe. Vacuum energy and quantum mechanics tells us that. Universe can be created, and universe can be destroyed. It has to in order to keep up with expansion. That's annother point indicating a finite universe.
[quote]Not at all matter expanding within a pre existing wider universe.[/quote]
Matter itself isn't expanding. That will only happen far in the future, assuming the big rip is accurate. And that's a major assumption. We'll hit entropy long before then.
[quote]Space and matter build (and exist as) a gravitational Field.[/quote]
There's nothing in known science to support that claim. And anti-matter directly contradicts the claim.
[quote]That, my friend, is Physics.[/quote]
Mmkay...
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sicarium The confirmation of Gravitational Waves (1995-2005) also confirm the conception of the Universe as a gravitational field.
When you mention Quantum Physics it would be nice to also say wich of the nine formulations of it is the quoted one.
And, Quantum (whatever formulation) giving an account of Gravitational Field is still not reached. If ever will, which I personal doubt.
I agree, anyhow, with some points of your more recent post.
Wich are not, indeed, a support for an "actual infinite" Universe.
When you mention Quantum Physics it would be nice to also say wich of the nine formulations of it is the quoted one.
And, Quantum (whatever formulation) giving an account of Gravitational Field is still not reached. If ever will, which I personal doubt.
I agree, anyhow, with some points of your more recent post.
Wich are not, indeed, a support for an "actual infinite" Universe.
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@CharlieZ [quote]The confirmation of Gravitational Waves (1995-2005) also confirm the conception of a gravitational field.[/quote]
Jumping from "gravitational waves are confirmed" to "matter is built out of gravitational waves" is a non-sequiter.
[quote]When you mention Quantum Physics it would be nice to also say wich of the nine formulations of it is the quoted one.[/quote]
Are you disputing what I said or just trying to pointlessly argue?
[quote]Quantum (whatever formulation) giving an account of Gravitational Field is still not reached. If ever will, which I personal doubt.[/quote]
That's irrelevant.
[quote]Wich are not, indeed, a support for an "actual infinite" Universe.[/quote]
I never said they were. I said the exact opposite.
Jumping from "gravitational waves are confirmed" to "matter is built out of gravitational waves" is a non-sequiter.
[quote]When you mention Quantum Physics it would be nice to also say wich of the nine formulations of it is the quoted one.[/quote]
Are you disputing what I said or just trying to pointlessly argue?
[quote]Quantum (whatever formulation) giving an account of Gravitational Field is still not reached. If ever will, which I personal doubt.[/quote]
That's irrelevant.
[quote]Wich are not, indeed, a support for an "actual infinite" Universe.[/quote]
I never said they were. I said the exact opposite.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sicarium One point at a time.
- "Based on what we currently know, it has to be finite" and you ar right "I never said they were. I said the exact opposite."
Sorry, my fault, I read you badly and, in fact, the opposite.
- "The universe is the canvas. Mass and spacetime are the painting on that canvas"
There is no thing as a physical "canvas" autonomous from Mass and Spacetime.
Not a one described by Physics, specially not by Relativity.
In your words "There's nothing in known science to support that claim" (about a "something" that is not matter and spacetime, the "canvas". Sonds a bit a Metaphysical "entity".
- "Jumping from "gravitational waves are confirmed" to "matter is built out of gravitational waves" is a non-sequiterut"
Of course, no confirmed observation of the partial behaviour of a System is an enough description of such system.
But is, or not, consistent with a wider description, theoretical frame.
Gravitational waves are not "in space" as gravitational curvature of space is not "in space" (perturbed by something independent, as mass) is space itself behaving like fields do.
BTW, the theoretical frame is Relativity.
- My references to Quantum Physics was about your assertion: "...and quantum mechanics tells us that."
As quantum can´t give (at the present) an account of gravitation, it cant´t give answers (or, at least, not till today) for the nature and structure of the macroscopic universe at it´s cosmic scale.
And my comment on the various formulations was because their different approaches of the concept of field (not the gravitational one), wich is a core one.
Finally:
Mine: "Quantum (whatever formulation) giving an account of Gravitational Field is still not reached. If ever will, which I personal doubt"
Yours: "That's irrelevant"
Yes, agree, your reference to Quantum, when debating this, is irrelevant. And THAT was what I´ve said, for said reason.
- "Based on what we currently know, it has to be finite" and you ar right "I never said they were. I said the exact opposite."
Sorry, my fault, I read you badly and, in fact, the opposite.
- "The universe is the canvas. Mass and spacetime are the painting on that canvas"
There is no thing as a physical "canvas" autonomous from Mass and Spacetime.
Not a one described by Physics, specially not by Relativity.
In your words "There's nothing in known science to support that claim" (about a "something" that is not matter and spacetime, the "canvas". Sonds a bit a Metaphysical "entity".
- "Jumping from "gravitational waves are confirmed" to "matter is built out of gravitational waves" is a non-sequiterut"
Of course, no confirmed observation of the partial behaviour of a System is an enough description of such system.
But is, or not, consistent with a wider description, theoretical frame.
Gravitational waves are not "in space" as gravitational curvature of space is not "in space" (perturbed by something independent, as mass) is space itself behaving like fields do.
BTW, the theoretical frame is Relativity.
- My references to Quantum Physics was about your assertion: "...and quantum mechanics tells us that."
As quantum can´t give (at the present) an account of gravitation, it cant´t give answers (or, at least, not till today) for the nature and structure of the macroscopic universe at it´s cosmic scale.
And my comment on the various formulations was because their different approaches of the concept of field (not the gravitational one), wich is a core one.
Finally:
Mine: "Quantum (whatever formulation) giving an account of Gravitational Field is still not reached. If ever will, which I personal doubt"
Yours: "That's irrelevant"
Yes, agree, your reference to Quantum, when debating this, is irrelevant. And THAT was what I´ve said, for said reason.
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@CharlieZ [quote]Sorry, my fault, I read you badly and, in fact, the opposite.[/quote]
Fair enough.
[quote]There is no thing as a physical "canvas" autonomous from Mass and Spacetime.[/quote]
That's not true. Conceptually, there'd be no need for a term like spacetime if there wasn't a base something separate from spacetime. And, again, we can point to quantum, vacuum energy, and the creation and destruction of universe for evidence.
[quote]Not a one described by Physics, specially not by Relativity.[/quote]
I've given you examples from physics as evidence. Everything I'm talking about is from physics. You keep saying there's nothing in physics, but I'm literally giving you things from physics.
[quote]Of course, no confirmed observation of the partial behaviour of a System is an enough description of such system.[/quote]
That's not the issue. Observing gravitational waves does not say anything about matter being built from gravitational waves. Beyond that, it's a rather silly idea once you get into particle and high energy physics.
[quote]Gravitational waves are not "in space" as gravitational curvature of space is not "in space" (perturbed by something independent, as mass) is space itself behaving like fields do.[/quote]
Never said they were. Gravity, and spacetime, are distortion caused by mass. "Space" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Fill a bath tub with water. Let the water sit until it's completely still. Drop an empty shampoo bottle into one end of the tub. That empty shampoo bottle is a planet. The ripples it creates are spacetime and gravity. Now drop a rubber duck into the other end of the tub. That rubber duck is a star. It's ripples are spacetime and gravity. "Space" is literally the space between the rubber duck and the shampoo bottle. Without either, there is no "space". Which is why many are abandoning the term. It had no real use at this level.
[quote]BTW, the theoretical frame is Relativity.[/quote]
Which one? Specific relatively doesn't work. General relativity is incomplete.
[quote]As quantum can´t give (at the present) an account of gravitation, it cant´t give answers (or, at least, not till today) for the nature and structure of the macroscopic universe at it´s cosmic scale.[/quote]
That's another non-sequiter. You're placing too much importance on gravity. Gravity is only one of the four prime forces. Just because we don't fully understand what gravity is does not mean we do not understand the other three. Nor does it invalidate everything coming of a quantum physics.
[quote]And my comment on the various formulations was because their different approaches of the concept of field (not the gravitational one), wich is a core one.[/quote]
So? I'm not addressing that. I'm simply pointing that quantum describes the universe below what you're calling "space", and that universe is what's expanding. Gravity is irrelevant to that.
[quote]Yes, agree, your reference to Quantum, when debating this, is irrelevant. And THAT was what I´ve said, for said reason.[/quote]
False. See above.
And all of this is before I even get into the possible implications of the Higgs field, which may very well turn out to be the base universe itself.
Fair enough.
[quote]There is no thing as a physical "canvas" autonomous from Mass and Spacetime.[/quote]
That's not true. Conceptually, there'd be no need for a term like spacetime if there wasn't a base something separate from spacetime. And, again, we can point to quantum, vacuum energy, and the creation and destruction of universe for evidence.
[quote]Not a one described by Physics, specially not by Relativity.[/quote]
I've given you examples from physics as evidence. Everything I'm talking about is from physics. You keep saying there's nothing in physics, but I'm literally giving you things from physics.
[quote]Of course, no confirmed observation of the partial behaviour of a System is an enough description of such system.[/quote]
That's not the issue. Observing gravitational waves does not say anything about matter being built from gravitational waves. Beyond that, it's a rather silly idea once you get into particle and high energy physics.
[quote]Gravitational waves are not "in space" as gravitational curvature of space is not "in space" (perturbed by something independent, as mass) is space itself behaving like fields do.[/quote]
Never said they were. Gravity, and spacetime, are distortion caused by mass. "Space" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Fill a bath tub with water. Let the water sit until it's completely still. Drop an empty shampoo bottle into one end of the tub. That empty shampoo bottle is a planet. The ripples it creates are spacetime and gravity. Now drop a rubber duck into the other end of the tub. That rubber duck is a star. It's ripples are spacetime and gravity. "Space" is literally the space between the rubber duck and the shampoo bottle. Without either, there is no "space". Which is why many are abandoning the term. It had no real use at this level.
[quote]BTW, the theoretical frame is Relativity.[/quote]
Which one? Specific relatively doesn't work. General relativity is incomplete.
[quote]As quantum can´t give (at the present) an account of gravitation, it cant´t give answers (or, at least, not till today) for the nature and structure of the macroscopic universe at it´s cosmic scale.[/quote]
That's another non-sequiter. You're placing too much importance on gravity. Gravity is only one of the four prime forces. Just because we don't fully understand what gravity is does not mean we do not understand the other three. Nor does it invalidate everything coming of a quantum physics.
[quote]And my comment on the various formulations was because their different approaches of the concept of field (not the gravitational one), wich is a core one.[/quote]
So? I'm not addressing that. I'm simply pointing that quantum describes the universe below what you're calling "space", and that universe is what's expanding. Gravity is irrelevant to that.
[quote]Yes, agree, your reference to Quantum, when debating this, is irrelevant. And THAT was what I´ve said, for said reason.[/quote]
False. See above.
And all of this is before I even get into the possible implications of the Higgs field, which may very well turn out to be the base universe itself.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Sicarium LOL!
My laugh is not at all about your assertions, my friend. They have my full respect if not my agreement.
My smile comes from something historical.
No matter the upgrades, it´s still the same debate since the conference of Solvay.
Nothing of what me or you have posted is really significative new about.
I do not stand for the "build up" of the macroscopic properties of the Universe from the Quantum scale ones.
Of course, Relativity is incomplete.
And if true, wich is, Quantum Physics is also incomplete and even more.
Not, as I see it, a candidate for being the fundation of Unification.
But, there is a lot to research ahead.
Is not that I give to Gravity too much importance. Much more, I say (what may be wrong and refuted, but not by what what you already said, that the Universe is, in itself made of Gravity, the field, at least at the macroscopic scale.
With, again, my respects, a hug.
My laugh is not at all about your assertions, my friend. They have my full respect if not my agreement.
My smile comes from something historical.
No matter the upgrades, it´s still the same debate since the conference of Solvay.
Nothing of what me or you have posted is really significative new about.
I do not stand for the "build up" of the macroscopic properties of the Universe from the Quantum scale ones.
Of course, Relativity is incomplete.
And if true, wich is, Quantum Physics is also incomplete and even more.
Not, as I see it, a candidate for being the fundation of Unification.
But, there is a lot to research ahead.
Is not that I give to Gravity too much importance. Much more, I say (what may be wrong and refuted, but not by what what you already said, that the Universe is, in itself made of Gravity, the field, at least at the macroscopic scale.
With, again, my respects, a hug.