View Full Version : An Exercise in "nothing" semantics.
I apologize for not being able to include the responses, in fact my computer is moving so slowly that I'm not going to be able to copy the exact original post.
The point was this: If you take a sentence, where the word "nothing" is used, and replace "nothing" with "not anything", the result gives the same meaning as the original, but it doesn't allow for foolish contemplation of what "nothing" is.
An example would be... "The universe is expanding into nothing" = "The universe is not expanding into anything". The same meaning, and yet it eliminates the need for poinless debates about the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into.
quantumcarl
Mar17-03, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
"The universe is expanding into nothing" = "The universe is not expanding into anything". The same meaning, and yet it eliminates the need for poinless debates about the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into. [/B]
It would be nice to get into this discussion "tableu blanc" but, I remember some of it and I remember you stating that the universe is expanding into the universe.
Are you stating that the universe is "not anything" with your example? Or is it a purely hypothetical and didactic statement that has "much adeu about nothing"?
Originally posted by quantumcarl
It would be nice to get into this discussion "tableu blanc" but, I remember some of it and I remember you stating that the universe is expanding into the universe.
Are you stating that the universe is "not anything" with your example? Or is it a purely hypothetical and didactic statement that has "much adeu about nothing"?
Actually, it was carl (you?), who said that the view is usually that the universe is expanding into the universe. I have never said that. I said that the expansion of the universe is merely a "broadening of it's horizons", and that discussion of what it was "expanding into" was moot.
Side Note: In other threads, I also made mention of the point that "universe" means "everything", and thus it makes no sense to say that universe is expanding "into something", because there would be nothing (or "there wouldn't be anything") outside of it.
quantumcarl
Mar17-03, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, it was carl (you?), who said that the view is usually that the universe is expanding into the universe. I have never said that. I said that the expansion of the universe is merely a "broadening of it's horizons", and that discussion of what it was "expanding into" was moot.
Side Note: In other threads, I also made mention of the point that "universe" means "everything", and thus it makes no sense to say that universe is expanding "into something", because there would be nothing (or "there wouldn't be anything") outside of it.
Hi Mentat, OK, yes its me.
How do you define "broaden". How can we put an horizon on an infinite universe? Perhaps you don't see the universe as infinite?
When we talk about the universe expanding, we simply mean that the distances between points in space time are increasing. There is no requirement for it to be expanding into a larger space, since all space exists within the universe. Therefore, "the universe isn't expanding into anything" is good word usage. Distances are simply increasing between objects. That's what it means.
Iacchus32
Mar18-03, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by CJames
When we talk about the universe expanding, we simply mean that the distances between points in space time are increasing. There is no requirement for it to be expanding into a larger space, since all space exists within the universe. Therefore, "the universe isn't expanding into anything" is good word usage. Distances are simply increasing between objects. That's what it means.
So the space is already there, meaning the Universe is expanding into empty space?
muhahaha IM BACK *comes riding in looking all majestic and stuff*
hehe
CJames, your definition of expansion is not expansion, it is just movement in a defined area. Unless youmean to say tat all matter, energy, ect. is infinite. In which case this is against the BB theory since there, at some point, was a starting point for the expansion and a defined condensed area in which it started. Perhaps I misread what you are explaining.
Iacchus32, use Mentats way and say that the Universe is expanding into not a thing.
Mentat said:
An example would be... "The universe is expanding into nothing" = "The universe is not expanding into anything". The same meaning, and yet it eliminates the need for poinless debates about the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into.
I would say "The Universe is expading into not a thing". Your example makes it sound like the universe is not expanding. ut we all know what you meant.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Hi Mentat, OK, yes its me.
How do you define "broaden". How can we put an horizon on an infinite universe? Perhaps you don't see the universe as infinite?
Hey carl, good to see you, again [:)]. Cool new name.
When I say "broaden", I mean basically what CJames said (in his post). That all parts of it are getting farther apart. But when I say "broadening it's horizons", I make specific reference to the edge of the universe (as I do not believe that the universe is infinite).
Originally posted by Ishop
muhahaha IM BACK *comes riding in looking all majestic and stuff*
hehe
CJames, your definition of expansion is not expansion, it is just movement in a defined area. Unless youmean to say tat all matter, energy, ect. is infinite. In which case this is against the BB theory since there, at some point, was a starting point for the expansion and a defined condensed area in which it started. Perhaps I misread what you are explaining.
Iacchus32, use Mentats way and say that the Universe is expanding into not a thing.
Mentat said:
I would say "The Universe is expading into not a thing". Your example makes it sound like the universe is not expanding. ut we all know what you meant.
Actually, Ishop, I worded it as I did purposefully. You see, a big problem with the question, "what is the universe expanding into", is that it implies that the universe is - in fact - expanding into something. I am saying that it is expanding into nothing, or (better phrased...) it is not expanding into anything.
Iacchus32,So the space is already there, meaning the Universe is expanding into empty space? No, once again it is not expanding into anything.
Ishop,CJames, your definition of expansion is not expansion, it is just movement in a defined area. Unless youmean to say tat all matter, energy, ect. is infinite. In which case this is against the BB theory since there, at some point, was a starting point for the expansion and a defined condensed area in which it started. Perhaps I misread what you are explaining. It is not expansion in the way we commonly interpret it, but it is what is meant by the expansion of the universe. Any two points in spacetime are moving away from each other. That is the expansion of the universe. A universe of infinite size does not defy the big bang theory, nor is it required for this sort of expansion to work. Is there a topic on this yet in astronomy? If so, you should look it up, as this is the philosophy section.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
So the space is already there, meaning the Universe is expanding into empty space?
No, Iacchus32, if you re-read my post, you'll see that the theory is that the universe in not expanding into anything.
chosenone
Mar18-03, 01:45 PM
So if the universe is expanding into nothing,then the longer it keeps happening the soon will cease to exist when we to become nothing!just a little joke!if we exist in space ,the matter that exists in space takes space to occuppyit.how could a universe full of empty space expanding outward to take space itself to do it.the universe occuppies space to,so we must be expanding in something that has space too,because you cant have space on the inside and not on the outside!
Originally posted by chosenone
So if the universe is expanding into nothing,then the longer it keeps happening the soon will cease to exist when we to become nothing!just a little joke!if we exist in space ,the matter that exists in space takes space to occuppyit.how could a universe full of empty space expanding outward to take space itself to do it.the universe occuppies space to,so we must be expanding in something that has space too,because you cant have space on the inside and not on the outside!
Yes, you can, and that's the point. There is nothing outside of everything (read "there isn't anything outside of 'everything'"), and so it is - in fact - impossible for the universe to be expanding into more of anything.
arivero
Mar18-03, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
The point was this: If you take a sentence, where the word "nothing" is used, and replace "nothing" with "not anything", the result gives the same meaning as the original, but it doesn't allow for foolish contemplation of what "nothing" is.
Indeed the nominalization of the negative action is a well known falacy. It is evident for infinite sets, where while it can be proved easily that some concrete element is not in the (finite or infinite) set A, it is a whole big logical jump to believe in the existence of "the set whose elements are not in the set A". It amounts to believe in the closed existence of "the set of everything", so you can substract A from the Total.
A relationship between linguistics and politics is stablished by some thinkers by noticing that while "no thing" is an action, dynamical, "nothing" is a noun, static. Thus nominalization allows for burocratical tasks, classification, etc. and then also allows for freezing and stagnancy of a society. In this point of view the fallacy comes from believing in the closed existence of "the reality" as, say, a set of all the existing things. The fallacy, by the way, applies to more specific examples. The most popular in politics could be to identify "we want no social order!" with "we want social disorders". But one can do it with almost every action.
Originally posted by arivero
Indeed the nominalization of the negative action is a well known falacy. It is evident for infinite sets, where while it can be proved easily that some concrete element is not in the (finite or infinite) set A, it is a whole big logical jump to believe in the existence of "the set whose elements are not in the set A". It amounts to believe in the closed existence of "the set of everything", so you can substract A from the Total.
A relationship between linguistics and politics is stablished by some thinkers by noticing that while "no thing" is an action, dynamical, "nothing" is a noun, static. Thus nominalization allows for burocratical tasks, classification, etc. and then also allows for freezing and stagnancy of a society. In this point of view the fallacy comes from believing in the closed existence of "the reality" as, say, a set of all the existing things. The fallacy, by the way, applies to more specific examples. The most popular in politics could be to identify "we want no social order!" with "we want social disorders". But one can do it with almost every action.
Good comparison[:))] .
Ishop,
This subject came up on the old board. Maybe a URL might help clear things up. http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/cosm/bang.html
arguements on the Big Bang theory aside, if what you describe is the "space" between objects changing is the expanding universe, then you are still describing space as "not a thing" (nothing). This bolds well for the arguement that there is a "nothing". An area defined by the lack of something. It is a negative property and therefore can exsist. Just as dark exsist. Even thouh dark is only defined by lack of light, nothing is defined as lack of exsistence. No one argues that there is no dark. Now the only problem is that people see the word "nothing" as a noun because we treat it as so in our language. But we use the word "dark" as an adjective to describe a noun. This confuses people into thinking that "nothing cannot be a something therefore there cannot be a nothing because it cannot be something". Obviously this is just a play on words and ignores the concept and definition of nothing. The truth is "nothing" is a adjective that is spoken in the nouns place. The noun is area. So instead of saying there is not a thing in this area. You say there is nothing here. Nothing meaning: not a thing in this area. So, even your explaination of expansion requires there to be a nothing. This then makes the arguement of "is the universe expanding or simply moving away from eachother" mute. Both arguements require a "not a thing area" to exsist.
I also know that many of you are just itching to reply with "area requires measurements, you cannot measure "not a thing"". Here is your answer to that. Take dark. We say a room is dark. Why does the dark stop? Did we measure dark? No, we simply measured where the light ended. If there is 2 meters in which light does not exsist, we say the dark is 2 meters long. The dark is not measured, the lght is in a negative way in order to define the dark. The same concept applies with nothing.
Originally posted by Ishop
arguements on the Big Bang theory aside, if what you describe is the "space" between objects changing is the expanding universe, then you are still describing space as "not a thing" (nothing). This bolds well for the arguement that there is a "nothing".
Actually, space is a field, which is just as physical as matter. But you can really call it anything you want.
An area defined by the lack of something. It is a negative property and therefore can exsist. Just as dark exsist. Even thouh dark is only defined by lack of light, nothing is defined as lack of exsistence.
You can call space chocolate for all it matters, the area is still a field whether or not matter is present. The question is, why call matter a thing, and a field not anything? In terms of geometry, they are quite similar.
....The noun is area. So instead of saying there is not a thing in this area. You say there is nothing here. Nothing meaning: not a thing in this area.
And that again illustrates my question. Why call an an empty area of the gravitational field nothing, while calling matter something? What makes matter so special that it should be called a thing, while fields should not?
So, even your explaination of expansion requires there to be a nothing. This then makes the arguement of "is the universe expanding or simply moving away from eachother" mute. Both arguements require a "not a thing area" to exsist.
If you want to refer to a vacuum (absence of matter) as nothing, fine. But even that won't work, because QM forbids the existence such vacuums. At every point in the universe, there seems to be at least a small amount of energy present. What then?
Ishop, if you are trying to say that the volume of empty space in the universe is rising, it is. So if you call empty space nothing, there you go. But the nothingness we refer to here is absolute nothing. The universe isn't expanding into anything, because there is no thing for the universe to expand into. It is simply expanding.
CJames, when I say nothing I mean nothing. Not a thing. Absolute nothing in your words. I agree with your last two sentences. I hate the word "space". I mean "space" to be an area. If I say a space with no thing, that is an area in which not a thing exsist. I do not mean the "space a final frontier". Or outside of Earths Atmosphere. I think we agree in our outlooks, you might have taken something wrong that I said.
Eh, you said that expansion is exsisting things seperating not really expanding. Now you say that there are fields (gravitational) that are in between these objects. I agree that a gravitational field is something, but now your idea of expansion is collapsing (excuse the pun). If you have item "A" and item "B" seperating, then you are saying there is a gravitaional field in between them. I'll accept that. But that is not expansion, that is growth. What you are saying is at one point A and B have a field that is 1 meter long between them, a few hours later they have a field that is 2 meters between them. You see this is growth of exsistence, not expansion and not expansion according to the Big Bang Theory. What you describe is much like dirt particles in a glass of water. particle A and B are seperating but have water (field) in between them and that the water is growing. Although it may look like expansion, this is actually growth. The water would be growing not expanding. What expansion would be is dumping the water on the floor. The water would then expand along with the dirt particles. That is expansion. I'll meet you half way though. I see growing gravitaional fields, so I will say that the water is growing and the water is spilled. I think this is an accurate analogy of our universe. However in order to say that anything is expanding there must be a way to measure that. If it is measurable then it is not infinite. A finite universe must yield to the idea that there is not a thing somewhere.
QM does not forbid the concept of a vacum. There is a vacum between Atoms and electrons.
Ishop, the term expansion is used quite loosely in cosmology. We tend to think of expansion in terms of things getting bigger. So call it growth if you so desire, it doesn't change what it is.
The thing you are not understanding is what I mean by absolute nothing. Absolute nothing means not only no matter, but no space and no time. This is actually why Mentat started this topic, to explain how confusing the word "nothing" is. Space isn't expanding into anything, that is the way to put it.
Imagine the surface of a balloon. Imagine that the universe exists on the surface of this balloon. As you blow into this balloon, every point on the surface of the balloon recedes from every other point on the balloon. Remember, the only thing that exists is the SURFACE of the balloon. So you can see there is no edge to this expansion, and there is no empty space into which the balloon's surface is expanding.
Now in the real world, the universe is 3-dimensional, unlike the surface of a balloon. But the concept is the same.
Originally posted by Ishop
Eh, you said that expansion is exsisting things seperating not really expanding.
No I didn't. Space is just another name for the gravitational field, and asymptotically flat expands. Local regions of curved space (matter) do not expand. So you could say the flat space in between galaxies that expands, but not the curved space that makes up the stars and galaxies.
Now you say that there are fields (gravitational) that are in between these objects. I agree that a gravitational field is something, but now your idea of expansion is collapsing (excuse the pun). If you have item "A" and item "B" seperating, then you are saying there is a gravitaional field in between them. I'll accept that. But that is not expansion, that is growth.
Again, it's the space between A and B expanding. A and B don't need to move at all.
What you are saying is at one point A and B have a field that is 1 meter long between them, a few hours later they have a field that is 2 meters between them. You see this is growth of exsistence, not expansion and not expansion according to the Big Bang Theory.
Nope, it's called expansion, and I'd sure like to hear you version of the big bang theory. You once claimed the theory is not compatible with a finite universe, so I'm guessing we're not on the same page here.
What you describe is much like dirt particles in a glass of water. particle A and B are seperating but have water (field) in between them and that the water is growing. Although it may look like expansion, this is actually growth. The water would be growing not expanding. What expansion would be is dumping the water on the floor. The water would then expand along with the dirt particles. That is expansion. I'll meet you half way though. I see growing gravitaional fields, so I will say that the water is growing and the water is spilled.
Semantics. You can say the field is growing or expanding - it means the same thing.
...A finite universe must yield to the idea that there is not a thing somewhere.
Since space is a field and something, this claim does not follow.
QM does not forbid the concept of a vacum. There is a vacum between Atoms and electrons.
The quantum vacuum is the ground state - it is not a perfect vacuum. There is a finite amount of energy everywhere - even in between atoms.
quantumcarl
Mar19-03, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Hey carl, good to see you, again [:)]. Cool new name.
When I say "broaden", I mean basically what CJames said (in his post). That all parts of it are getting farther apart. But when I say "broadening it's horizons", I make specific reference to the edge of the universe (as I do not believe that the universe is infinite).
Brother Mentat!
Edge of the universe?
"Edge" implies a defining difference between one state and another state.
What do you believe is on the other side of the "edge" of the universe?
Is it the state of "not anything"?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CJames, dood!
You say the parts of the universe are getting farther apart, basically running away from each other. Like with boiling water, the H2O molecular structures are getting further apart, creating more distance between each other.
They are in a pot so this "getting further apart" tends to result in "steam" and the H2O molecules escape the confines of the pot via becoming a gas and expanding into the atmosphere.
This is what we observe in nature and within the confines of the physical universe.
Why would it be any different for the collection of matter that is this universe... in that, as you say... it does not expand, nor "broaden" but has somehow defied that end result of "creating more distance" which is expansion yet creates more distance between its (huge) "pariticles"?
Is it that matter on a small scale does not act with the same logic as matter on a vast scale?
EDIT. Oops, I just read eh's explaination... so I have to re-word this........
Is it that space does not act with the same logic on a small scale as it does on a large scale? (in that: space expands when it is out of reach of gravitational fields and cannot expand (or create distance) when its warped up in a g field?!
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Brother Mentat!
Edge of the universe?
"Edge" implies a defining difference between one state and another state.
What do you believe is on the other side of the "edge" of the universe?
Is it the state of "not anything"?!
I said "edge". I didn't say there was anything on the other side of it. Yes, the "edge of the universe" is the defining difference between existence and the lack-thereof. Fortunately, nothing can reach the "edge", even if such a thing actually exists.
quantumcarl
Mar19-03, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, the "edge of the universe" is the defining difference between existence and the lack-thereof. Fortunately, nothing can reach the "edge", even if such a thing actually exists.
So you're using the term 'edge" hypothetically?
Is it because we are conditioned by our experience, here, somewhere in the midst of all the matter of the universe, where there are edges and boundaries... abrupt changes in density etc... that we tend to rely on words like "edge" to describe the "outer reachs" of the universe?
Or is it because that is exactly what it is... a boundary... an abrupt change in density... from space and matter (energy) to... "not anything".
And if that boundary between anything and not anything were there... it would be correct to say that the state of "not anything" allows for the expansion (or broadening) of "anything" by its very potential to accomodate it....... or be replaced by it.
I don't think its fortunate that we can't quite study the "edge" of the universe... if there is one.
I do think its fortunate that the challenge is there... otherwise we'd never think to tackle it!!!
QuantumCarl said:
The thing you are not understanding is what I mean by absolute nothing. Absolute nothing means not only no matter, but no space and no time. This is actually why Mentat started this topic, to explain how confusing the word "nothing" is. Space isn't expanding into anything, that is the way to put it
I fully understand this and agree with it. As said in my past posts.
I said:
CJames, when I say nothing I mean nothing. Not a thing. Absolute nothing in your words.[QUOTE]
I also said:
[QUOTE]I agree that a gravitational field is something
So where did you get that I dont agree with you there?
You also use the surface of a baloon as an exaple of the universe, but then say, now imagine that happening in a 3D world. You can't. Because that cannot happen in a 3D world. Your ballon shows a finite universe. It would be possible to account for the entire baloon surface, meaning it is measurable and finite. Then you say, now apply that to an infinite 3D univiverse? Please use a better example. Give me an example of an infinite 3D object. Since Atoms are not infinite and have a measurable defined space you cannot. Your example does not work. I can say imagine a "blah blah" expanding. Now apply that to a 3d infinite universe. Doesn't work.
Eh Said:
Space is just another name for the gravitational field
Which is why I did not use the word space and I hate the word. When I say gravitaional field I mean gravitational field. Gravitaional fields are finite just a light is finite. This coincides with a finite universe meaning that there is somewhere outside the universe that has no universe "not a thing" including gravitaional fields and curves.
You also said:
Semantics. You can say the field is growing or expanding - it means the same thing.
No it doesn't. People do not expand, they grow. A baby does not expand into an adult, they grow. There is a difference. You might as well say"semantics, lettuce, turtles, same thing. Different definitions means different things.
Mentat said:
I said "edge". I didn't say there was anything on the other side of it. Yes, the "edge of the universe" is the defining difference between existence and the lack-thereof. Fortunately, nothing can reach the "edge", even if such a thing actually exists.
Finite universe.
I'm all about going to the Resturaunt and the Edge of the Universe with Slartibartfast and having a Snargleblaster or two.
Ishop,
You also use the surface of a baloon as an exaple of the universe, but then say, now imagine that happening in a 3D world. You can't. Because that cannot happen in a 3D world.I know it's confusing Ishop. But that is the way it works. That is how general relativity works. It describes the 4-dimensional world (3 spacial dimensions + the dimension of time) as though it were 2 dimensional. It can be bent and warped like the surface of a trampoline. This is how gravity works. It sounds crazy, but there is no denying how it matches reality exactly. Experiment after experiment proves it's accuracey. GPS sattelites don't work without compensating for general relativity.
If the universe is finite, which it doesn't appear to be however it still could be, then continuing in one direction, a straight line, will eventually carry you back to the same spot. It's similar to the 2 dimensional surface of the earth. Keep walking in one direction and you will end up back where you started. In a finite universe, that is how it works, only in 3 dimensions. It's impossible to visualize, but it's how it works.
An infinite universe certainly obeys the same truth. A universe of infinite size that is expanding, you can see there is no center to this expansion, that all points are receeding from all other points, and that there is no empty space into which this universe is expanding.
Again, you can call it growth if you wish. But the term used is expansion.
The reason I am saying all this is because I don't think you are clear on how to visualize this. You have agreed that the universe isn't expanding into anything, but I still have the impression you think there is an edge to this expansion. There isn't. If you understand this then okay, I am sorry.
Carl,
Why would it be any different for the collection of matter that is this universe... in that, as you say... it does not expand, nor "broaden" but has somehow defied that end result of "creating more distance" which is expansion yet creates more distance between its (huge) "pariticles"?I didn't realize I was this incoherent. I appologize. I am not implying that more space isn't created...
It all depends on what type of universe we are talking about. IF the universe is finite, meaning there is a limit to how big it is, then as I said it is like the surface of a balloon expanding. So in that case, yes, the finite size of the universe is actually getting larger.
In the case of an infinite universe, expansion doesn't mean getting larger than infinity. But it does mean adding more space to an infinite number. This is a confusing concept, but it works. An infinite number isn't the largest number possible. You can do whatever you want with infinity, add it, subtract it, divide it, and you will still get an answer that is infinite.
It must have been that part where I said, "We tend to think of expansion in terms of things getting bigger." That is confusing. Sorry. Disregard it. I was thinking of an infinite universe when I wrote that.
i find it more comfortable to say that the fluctuating distribution matter within the universe creates the appearance of expansion. it is much like how plant/animal material will shrink or expand with regard to moisture.
CJames Said:
If the universe is finite, which it doesn't appear to be however it still could be, then continuing in one direction, a straight line, will eventually carry you back to the same spot. It's similar to the 2 dimensional surface of the earth. Keep walking in one direction and you will end up back where you started. In a finite universe, that is how it works, only in 3 dimensions. It's impossible to visualize, but it's how it works.
Im sure yu realize that the earth is a sphere(a 3Dimensional object), not 2D. Also, what you describe above is not infinite. The earth is not infinite. There is a defined amount of matter. The universe (things that exsist, ie. gravitaional fields, matter, energy, ect.) are limited to amount. This is the only possiblity in a 2D representation or a 3D or 4D. However you want to represent it. If you want to say that the universe is like the earth (which it is not and I think you didnt mean exactly that) then yu must realize that there is space outside of the earth. If it is like a circle, there is space outside the circle. If it is represented by ANYTHING, there is something outside of it.
Use M&M's as an example. Say you put some M&M's on a coffee table. These M&M's represent EVERYTHING (including fields, energy, mass, ect.) anything that exsist. There is nothing besides the M&M's. No matter what shape you put them in 3D or 2D, ther is still an area in which there are no M&M's. This would be "nothing", "not a thing". The only way that there is no "nothing" is if those M&M's go on for infinity. There is no evidence that supports that matter, energy, fields, ect, are infinite. In fact there actually never could be since a property of infinity is that it cannot be measured. However the Big Ban theory deals with a finite amount of materials. Finite materials means exsistence of nothing.
You also said:
You have agreed that the universe isn't expanding into anything, but I still have the impression you think there is an edge to this expansion
I never said that the universe isn't expanding into anything. I said that it is expanding into "not a thing".
In order for there to be expansion it must be measured. An expansion is a measured speration of particles. I don't see how anyone can argue against that definition. Anything measured is not infinite. If it is not infinite then there is a place where there is no exsisting thing "nothing". You are saying matter, energy, fields, ect. are infinite. While you cannot destroy exsistence, only change its form, you cannot create it either. This implies a finite universe again. You are basicly saying that we get infinite atoms to make infinite things. If this were the case then everything would be solid for infinity.
Eh said:
You once claimed the theory (BB) is not compatible with a finite universe, so I'm guessing we're not on the same page here.
I may have mistyped. As you see above I meant that the BB theory is not compatable with an infinite universe. Same page. Also why the Big Bang theory proves there is an are with "not a thing" in it (nothing).
Eh you also said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said this:
QM does not forbid the concept of a vacum. There is a vacum between Atoms and electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
The quantum vacuum is the ground state - it is not a perfect vacuum. There is a finite amount of energy everywhere - even in between atoms.
I won't argue down to the atom, but I do like that you used the terms "finite amount of energy everywhere". Making me think again that you see the exsisting universe as finite. Which proves a "nothing".
quantumcarl
Mar20-03, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by CJames
Carl,
I didn't realize I was this incoherent. I appologize. I am not implying that more space isn't created...
It all depends on what type of universe we are talking about. IF the universe is finite, meaning there is a limit to how big it is, then as I said it is like the surface of a balloon expanding. So in that case, yes, the finite size of the universe is actually getting larger.
In the case of an infinite universe, expansion doesn't mean getting larger than infinity. But it does mean adding more space to an infinite number. This is a confusing concept, but it works. An infinite number isn't the largest number possible. You can do whatever you want with infinity, add it, subtract it, divide it, and you will still get an answer that is infinite.
It must have been that part where I said, "We tend to think of expansion in terms of things getting bigger." That is confusing. Sorry. Disregard it. I was thinking of an infinite universe when I wrote that.
Very cool CJames... thank you.
I see the universe as infinite. I see the possibilty of what we call the big bang as only one of an infinite number of big bangs... in whatever variety or manner of "banging".
This coincides with the idea of an infinite universe.
The reason we don't see the other big bangs or results thereof is because of separation by "not anything" or void.
This does not mean the "void" has a property... it has a lack of a property... as mentat might agree.... and thus it cannot transmit or carry light.
It also does not mean the "void" has a depth or substance of any kind.... just that it acts as a kind of membrane or psuedomembrane between regions that hold the results of energy ie: matter, space etc.
Thanks again for your explaination of the finite and infinite views of the universe. It gets confusing but I'm experienced with confusion!!!
In the case of an infinite universe i can see that any number or type of movement would not be termed expansion... only change
We have definitely been conditioned by our experience as "middle men" in the scheme of the universe. We witness expansion and contraction only because we have a finite physical body and relate what we have to what we see. I think this conditioning has helped us survive as long as we have! However, it may become necessary, at some later date, to see things differently in order to survive on a universal level of consciousness.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
So you're using the term 'edge" hypothetically?
Is it because we are conditioned by our experience, here, somewhere in the midst of all the matter of the universe, where there are edges and boundaries... abrupt changes in density etc... that we tend to rely on words like "edge" to describe the "outer reachs" of the universe?
Or is it because that is exactly what it is... a boundary... an abrupt change in density... from space and matter (energy) to... "not anything".
And if that boundary between anything and not anything were there... it would be correct to say that the state of "not anything" allows for the expansion (or broadening) of "anything" by its very potential to accomodate it....... or be replaced by it.
I don't think its fortunate that we can't quite study the "edge" of the universe... if there is one.
I do think its fortunate that the challenge is there... otherwise we'd never think to tackle it!!!
Don't speak of "not anything", as though it were a state. It is not. There is not the state of there being nothing there. There would be no "there", if there were "nothing there". The edge of the universe (if it exists) would be the point where existence stops; however, even if you could catch up to this point, you'd never "find" it because the fact that you are there, means that there is something, and that is thus not the edge of the universe anymore.
I agree with mentat about "not anything" being a on state.
Carl, while I disagree with how you come to your conclusion, it appears we both agree that there is absolute void by your last post...and that's what this thread was about so I won't debate the other things here.....cool. Seems like we've agreed on something. Wierd. lol
Originally posted by Ishop
"...Which is why I did not use the word space and I hate the word. When I say gravitaional field I mean gravitational field. Gravitaional fields are finite just a light is finite."
You can space whatever you want, but there is nothing that says the gravitational field must be finite. The geometry of the field (space) can be either infinite or finite, we just don't know which.
This coincides with a finite universe meaning that there is somewhere outside the universe that has no universe "not a thing" including gravitaional fields and curves."
No it doesn't, since by definition you cannot have a place without space. There logically can be no "outside" of space, and as I said space IS the gravitational field.
Now you might think that such a finite space would only be a small region in an infinite void, but this is only possible if the void has 4 spatial dimensions. You simply cannot embeded a hyperbolic object with only 3 dimensions.
But at any rate, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a void exists, and a finite universe does not lend credibility to the idea.
People do not expand, they grow. A baby does not expand into an adult, they grow. There is a difference. You might as well say"semantics, lettuce, turtles, same thing. Different definitions means different things.
Err, no. With a region of space that is increasing in volume, you can say it is growing or expanding. It makes absolutely no difference.
Originally posted by Ishop
I may have mistyped. As you see above I meant that the BB theory is not compatable with an infinite universe. Same page. Also why the Big Bang theory proves there is an are with "not a thing" in it (nothing).
That is also incorrect. The big bang is not incompatible with an infinite or finite space. See the link I posted, as it explains this.
And by definition, and area is a region of space. You cannot have a place without space, and in cosmology the expanding universe is the expansion of space itself.
I won't argue down to the atom, but I do like that you used the terms "finite amount of energy everywhere". Making me think again that you see the exsisting universe as finite. Which proves a "nothing".
Does not follow.
quantumcarl,The reason we don't see the other big bangs or results thereof is because of separation by "not anything" or void.So you have heard this theory? It's sort of a consequence of quantum mechanics. Like a universe springs up due to uncertainty. It's sort of a wierd concept. Separate universes. Separate everythings.
Since there is no spacetime connecting us to these alternate universes, they literally do no exist from our frame of reference. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "outta sight, outta mind."
Just as long as you aren't picturing a bunch of separate bubble universes growing next to each other, i'll agree. Because visuallizing that picture, you would imagine two of these universes might touch, which makes no sense. There is no space separating them, they are made of space time.
SO counterintiutive, and yet that's how it works.
Ishop,Im sure yu realize that the earth is a sphere(a 3Dimensional object), not 2D.The SURFACE of earth is two dimensional. Any position on the planet can be pinpointed by two coordinates.
The universe is 3 dimensional. But it can be curved and warped like a 2 dimensional surface. It's impossible to visualize. But again, that is exactly how it works. I'm not saying I'm right because I am right. I'm saying it because it is the conclusion of a theory that has been tested many many times and has been shown to be correct every time.
However the Big Ban theory deals with a finite amount of materials. Finite materials means exsistence of nothing.I appologize but this is not the case. The Big Bang does not require that there is a finite amount of material at the beginning of the universe. That is a symplistic understanding. That's what I hate about some of those documentaries on the big bang. They show this picture of a big explosion from the outside as though you could stand outside the universe and watch it expand.
CJames said:
The SURFACE of earth is two dimensional. Any position on the planet can be pinpointed by two coordinates.
What you are describing in 3Dimensional Design terms is a geosphere. In 3D design a geosphere is a sphere with only one exsisting side (surface). If you go inside the sphere and look out you see nothing. This is not only not 3Dimensional, it is 1Dimensional. If you were to unfold it like a map it would have only one side. You are also in error in thinking that you can find a place on earth with only two points. True you can, but you are not limited to 2 points. You can find a point on earth from a third point which is verticle. You are thinking of the world as a map. You are not limited to two points and an objects dimensions are not defined by its limitations, it is defined by its possibilities.
You also said:
The Big Bang does not require that there is a finite amount of material at the beginning of the universe. That is a symplistic understanding. That's what I hate about some of those documentaries on the big bang. They show this picture of a big explosion from the outside as though you could stand outside the universe and watch it expand.
I would LOVE to hear what you think the Big Bang was. Obviously to you the Big Bang had no Big Bang, it does not expand just moves around, and there is an infinite amount of matter and energy. I think you're barking up the wrong theory.
Eh said:
The geometry of the field (space) can be either infinite or finite, we just don't know which.
If you don't know then why are you arguing against me? According to you I could be right. I say one thing, and you say, well you're wrong cause we don't know. [?] Also, geometry deals with finite equations when used in real life situations.. True projective geometry deals with infinite lines, but these are adhered to a 2Dimensional Semishphere which cannot exsist in real space.
Then you said:
since by definition you cannot have a place without space. There logically can be no "outside" of space, and as I said space IS the gravitational field.
AGAIN!!! I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT SPACE CONTAINS GRAVITAIONAL FIELDS! Stop acting like I disagree with that statement. Also, you have to see that the word "place" is used as a concept and not its English definition. I think you are hung up on words. I also see no arguement for why there cannot be "logically" no outside of space. You are saying there is gravity everywhere because gravity is infinite. Fine, if you asume gravity is infinite you could argue that, I do not asume that. You said you simply do not know. But then you say:
a finite universe does not lend credibility to the idea.
Yes, it actually does. Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere. Any absense of these exsisting things is "nothing". Tell me, if you ever got to the "hypothetical" edge of EVERYTHING, what would you call beyond that? And there would be an edge if the universe was finite. In fact, it has to have an end if it is finite. You can't say...there's is something else out there....because that is exsistence and it is not the edge.
Then you said:
The big bang is not incompatible with an infinite or finite space.
So its just like....whatever. Everything applies. Ok.
After you quoted me as saying:
I won't argue down to the atom, but I do like that you used the terms "finite amount of energy everywhere". Making me think again that you see the exsisting universe as finite. Which proves a "nothing".
You then replied:
Does not follow.
None of this makes sense to you? This is what doesn't make sense to me. You argue that we don't know if gravity is finite or infinite so I'm wrong for assuming that it is finite. Then you argue that the universe is infinite according to the Big Bang. Then you argue that the Big Bang doesn't care if the universe is infinite or finite. Then you say there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. Then you say even if the universe has an end, still doesn't prove there is a "nothing", which is exactly what proves there is a "nothing". THIS does not follow.
I don't mean to be so harsh. Please do not think these arguements are an attack on you personally. I'm just a heated debater [:))]
Originally posted by Ishop ...If you don't know then why are you arguing against me? According to you I could be right. I say one thing, and you say, well you're wrong cause we don't know. [?]
I am arguing against your logic. Your claim that a finite universe implies there is a place where there is nothing, does not logically follow. While the universe may be embeded in external space, it is NOT a necessity. This seems to be a basic question of geometry.
Also, geometry deals with finite equations when used in real life situations.. True projective geometry deals with infinite lines, but these are adhered to a 2Dimensional Semishphere which cannot exsist in real space.
Nonsense. 1D lines apply to 2D surfaces as well as 3D areas.
AGAIN!!! I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT SPACE CONTAINS GRAVITAIONAL FIELDS! Stop acting like I disagree with that statement.
No, you don't get it. Space does not CONTAIN the field, it IS the field. No gravitational field, no space.
Also, you have to see that the word "place" is used as a concept and not its English definition. I think you are hung up on words. I also see no arguement for why there cannot be "logically" no outside of space.
Then you need to learn some logic, seriously. The term "outside" IS a term related to to space. I see you are attempting to do away with the definition of "place" by calling it a concept. But that is pure nonsense, since the "concept" has always had a geometric meaning. You simply cannot invent any arbitrary definition of the word to slide out of an argument, especially in the context of this discussion. You also cannot have space (area, place, etc.) outside of space, as that is a blatent contradiction.
You are saying there is gravity everywhere because gravity is infinite. Fine, if you asume gravity is infinite you could argue that, I do not asume that. You said you simply do not know.
I did not say gravity, nor space is infinite. Are you actually reading anything?
Yes, it actually does. Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere.
Do you seriously not see the logical contradiction here? You have just said you think there is a place[/b] where there is no space. From basic logic it follow that you cannot have a place (region of space) where there is no space.
A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent. If space had an edge, that edge will simply be that furthest point there is. In geometry you can define an object without reference to external space, and that includes edges. It seems that geometry is more the topic here than ontology.
Any absense of these exsisting things is "nothing". Tell me, if you ever got to the "hypothetical" edge of EVERYTHING, what would you call beyond that? And there would be an edge if the universe was finite. In fact, it has to have an end if it is finite. You can't say...there's is something else out there....because that is exsistence and it is not the edge.
Sigh. It has already been explained to you why the universe does not posses an edge. If it did, crossing it would be exactly the same as if the universe was expanding on its own. The volume would be increasing.
None of this makes sense to you? This is what doesn't make sense to me.....
I'm sorry, but your arguments are completely lacking in logic and sound reasoning. Your arguments have been addressed by members here, but you are refusing to address valid points, and are frequently hiding behind semantics. Worse, you are not reading the explanations given, or you have a reading comprehension problem. As a result you are coming up strawman attacks on arguments that were never made. Let's see what you wrote below for examples:
"You argue that we don't know if gravity is finite or infinite so I'm wrong for assuming that it is finite."
Never said that. I said your conclusion that a finite universe means there are places where there is nothing does not logically follow.
Then you argue that the universe is infinite according to the Big Bang.
Never said that either, though I pointed out that the theory is compatible with both infinite and finite.
Then you argue that the Big Bang doesn't care if the universe is infinite or finite.
See above.
Then you say there is a finite amount of energy in the universe.
And I never said that either. I said there is a finite amount of energy at each point in space. That's a far cry from saying the total amount of energy is finite, and no one who actually read the post would make that mistake.
Then you say even if the universe has an end, still doesn't prove there is a "nothing", which is exactly what proves there is a "nothing". THIS does not follow.
I have addressed this above. This is a question of basic geometry.
I don't mean to be so harsh. Please do not think these arguements are an attack on you personally. I'm just a heated debater [:))]
And don't take offense when I say learn your logic in this thread has been atrocious. It's not an insult, but needs to be pointed out and corrected if we are to have an intelligent conversation.
This entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of geometry, for example. The volume of an object has nothing to do with external space, and the edge or boundary of an object has nothing to with any space beyond it. It is misunderstandings like this that cause people to think the universe is expanding into a void. It does not take an expert on cosmology to refute that, as it is simply a question of geometry. As such, learning about it will avoid discussions like this in the future.
Ishop, you might be interested in reading Gorgias' essay "On Non-Being." i dug around a bit hoping to find it online but had no luck. i imagine you can find it in just about any library though.
also, please note though that the essay is an example of sophistry and do not try to use such arguments as it tends to severely aggravate anyone who actually thinks with their own mind. "nothing" is very much a theoretical construct that has no place in reality, regardless of the fact that rhetorical arguments can lead people to belive otherwise.
Eh, I see our responses frowing longer lol.
Let's start with your geometry lesson.
You said:
A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent
Lets take a square (basic geometry). There is a square, there is an end to the square. There is an area outside the square. This seems pretty basic to me. Here is a square, here there is not a square. What's the problem? Seems logical. Where is the flaw in logic?
Now, I'm throwing out the word space as far as me using it. In fact, I have not used it except to say I would accept your definition of space. Even the further explained one that space IS gravitational fields. You are the one applying the word space to my arguements.
The word place when refering to a location where no thing exsist will be known as plac# on my replies for now on. This is a concept in which you can determine where "nothing" is my seeing that there is no thing. It is a hypothetical understanding since you cannot measure "nothing" you are realy measuring the boundries of exsistence. Here, geometry again. Such as you have four red squares in a cross pattern. There is an empty plac# in between all four squares and you can measure this. Not by itself, but by the four exsisting squares. Just as you can measure dark by the absence of light.
Also, when I spoke of geometry applied to reality, you said:
Nonsense. 1D lines apply to 2D surfaces as well as 3D areas.
1D lines are not present in reality. Even if you have a line of atoms side by side, it is still 3D becasue it has 3 sides to it. If you could see a line on one side, but it does not exsist on the other, that would be 1D.
After I said:
Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere.
You said:
Do you seriously not see the logical contradiction here? You have just said you think there is a place[/b] where there is no space. From basic logic it follow that you cannot have a place (region of space) where there is no space
Where did I say the word "space", "place", or "region" in what you quoted me as saying above? I said I agree that space is gravitaional fields...why would I then say that there is gravitaional fields(space) where there is no gravitaional fields(space)? I didn't and you are misreading me. This is why you do not see logic.
You also said:
A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent.
And you complain about MY logic? finite means that there is an end. If there is an end, then there is either something or nothing past that end. If not something or nothing tell me what then. Obviously if there is an end to spaace, universe, all exsistence, then there cannot be a something past the end, so there must be nothing. How is this illogical to you? A is exsistence, N is A - A, so if A = 2 then N = 0. This is soooooo basic logic.[8)]
You said:
In geometry you can define an object without reference to external space, and that includes edges.
Okay, define a square without its edges. Can you do it? No. Becasue without defining edges you can have no measurement. Geometry is all measurements. You start off in basic geometry class with a freakin ruler. Please show the mathmatical equation that will prove a square without using measurements. Can't wait.
you said:
This entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of geometry, for example. The volume of an object has nothing to do with external space, and the edge or boundary of an object has nothing to with any space beyond it.
Passing the fact that you are using the word space and not void where needed, I agree somewhat in what you are meaning here. However, if I draw a square, the void outside that square has no control over the square, but the square has defined an area where there is no more void.
I have on this thread agreed to your term of space, and your explaination of "expansion" although it is clearly growth. However your claims, while stating that they are logical and fall within the boundries of basic geometry....are not and do not. Correct me if I am wrong in asuming that what you mean to say is that all there is is exsistence....even if it is finite. The very fact that you say there is no "space" outside of exsistence reaffirms there is nothing outside of exsistence. No space, no nothing. You cannot get there, you cannot measure it, it does not exsist. Which is the very nature of "nothing"
Last but not least you said:
Sigh. It has already been explained to you why the universe does not posses an edge. If it did, crossing it would be exactly the same as if the universe was expanding on its own. The volume would be increasing.
This is why I put the word "hypothetical" in quotation marks before the word edge as you quoted me saying in your response. Agreed that if you did reach a "hypothetical" edge and went beyond it you would not be outside the universe as you are part of it. However you can clearly imagine if you were two steps ahead....what that is right now before you make it there. It is nothing. No space, no time, nothing.
If you are to respond again with "geometry" this and "geometry" that, would you please refer to some equation or graph which is part of geometry that would serve your ideas? Perhaps then you can help my "limited" knowledge of geometry as you put it lol.
Kyleb said:
"nothing" is very much a theoretical construct that has no place in reality
and i couldn't have said it better myself. if it is not real, it is not part of reality. in fact, "nothing" is the opposite of reaity. It is concept. The absence of reality or exsistence is nothing.
However I will, for now skip your recomendation to read the essay since right after you refer me to it you say don't use it its rubbish. Hope you aren't a book salesman hehe.
i did not say the essay is rubbish, only that it is an example of a sophistical argument that is used to convince weak minded people of fallacies. however, there is much to be learned from understanding why those arguments are wrong and how there is no "opposite of reality", although there can be the illusion of such.
Yes, these posts are getting long. But that is because you are not addressing the points being made, and are simply repeating the same drivel over and over. It's a waste of time to repeat myself over and over again, so I'm going to cut this short and focus on the crux of the argument.
Originally posted by Ishop
Lets take a square (basic geometry). There is a square, there is an end to the square. There is an area outside the square. This seems pretty basic to me. Here is a square, here there is not a square. What's the problem? Seems logical. Where is the flaw in logic?
Here is the first misunderstanding that isn't being addressed. There isn't any problem, until you insist that you need the space outside to define the square. The point I have made is that an object is defined without reference to any external space.
Where did I say the word "space", "place", or "region" in what you quoted me as saying above?
And here is where the bulk of the misunderstanding comes from. You are constantly saying that. From this thread alone, here are some of the times you have said that there is a place or area where there is nothing.
"....The noun is area. So instead of saying there is not a thing in this area. You say there is nothing here. Nothing meaning: not a thing in this area. So, even your explaination of expansion requires there to be a nothing. "
"....An area defined by the lack of something. It is a negative property and therefore can exsist."
"....This coincides with a finite universe meaning that there is somewhere outside the universe that has no universe "not a thing" including gravitaional fields and curves."
"....Also why the Big Bang theory proves there is an area with "not a thing" in it (nothing)."
"...Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere"
So whether you admit it or not, you HAVE been talking about space, and your arguments amount to saying there is a space where there is no space. Attempting to hide behind semantics is not going to work. And the point of this thread has been that space is a "thing" like anything else.
And you complain about MY logic? finite means that there is an end. If there is an end, then there is either something or nothing past that end.
This also has to do with the definition of a geometrical object. An "end" does not have anything to do with external space. You can take any point of a geometric object and move towards the furthest point in X direction. This point has nothing to do with being any space beyond it. While any object in our universe obviously has space beyond it's borders, that is only because it happens to be embeded in space-time. But the definition of an object has nothing to do with outside space, and so a finite universe is not necessarily contained with any external space.
Notice how I said not necessarily contained, not that it is impossible. It is only the argument that a finite universe MUST be contained by an outside is demonstrately false.
If not something or nothing tell me what then. Obviously if there is an end to spaace, universe, all exsistence, then there cannot be a something past the end, so there must be nothing. How is this illogical to you? A is exsistence, N is A - A, so if A = 2 then N = 0. This is soooooo basic logic.[8)]
Posters here have already explained to you countless times the meaning of a negative word like nothing, but you refuse to pay attention. "Not anything past the end means there is literally no outside at all. That is the proper logical use of negation, but you obviously don't see it. Further, I have shown you that space itself is a thing. So address those arguments, or stop wasting time.
Well, I agree with Eh, about the whole BB argument - and I would reply to the arguments against it, but Eh is doing superbly, on his on. Anyway, I would also like to remind you all that this thread is not about BB theory. It is about the fact that "nothing" means "not anything", and that debates on what "nothing" is are pointless.
Yes exactly, Mentat. Ishop, this thread is about the semantics of the word "nothing." And while you keep saying you understand that there is no space outside of space Eh has shown you that you keep refering to it as though it were a place with area and distance.
You have proven Mentat's point nicely. The word nothing can construe things easily and should be avoided in most cases.
quantumcarl
Mar21-03, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by CJames
quantumcarl,So you have heard this theory? It's sort of a consequence of quantum mechanics. Like a universe springs up due to uncertainty. It's sort of a wierd concept. Separate universes. Separate everythings.
Since there is no spacetime connecting us to these alternate universes, they literally do no exist from our frame of reference. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "outta sight, outta mind."
Just as long as you aren't picturing a bunch of separate bubble universes growing next to each other, i'll agree. Because visuallizing that picture, you would imagine two of these universes might touch, which makes no sense. There is no space separating them, they are made of space time.
SO counterintiutive, and yet that's how it works.
To tell you the truth, CJames, I thought it was my own theory... but, its so simple that I also thought someone else would have come up with it, as well.
"Separate everything". Physically and conceptually, yes. However... the nuance of influence exists as well. And so complete separation seems only to be a concept, too.
That's like the myth of an "outside observer'.
We know this little phenomenon cannot exist in that the "outside observer" automatically becomes a part of that which they observe... through the power of observational influence and quantum logic(?). And relativity is partially suspended.
There is another consideration in this philosophy of Quantum Mechanics and Uncertainty. Consider the field generated by a universe. This would extend beyond the actual physical "bubble" for some amount of "area". This gets into a gradient logic that only exists in physical and conceptual models.... because I don't see a field (g?) generated by a universe as intermingling with what Mentat describes as "not anything".
We really do need to use "counter intuition" to get a hold of these concepts.
CJames, you just refered to "nothing" as "it". Does that mean you think it is "something"...of course not. I would not presume that and nor should any reasonable person asume that I am applying space and area to "nothing". We say "there is nothing there" because our language is limited. I have said plenty of times that the word "nothing" causes problems because people get stuck in the limitations of language just as you and Eh both thik that I am applying area and space to "nothing" by saying there is nothing outside of exsistence. Our language prohibits me from putting it any other way.
Mentat said:
It is about the fact that "nothing" means "not anything", and that debates on what "nothing" is are pointless.
I have said this continuously. In almost every post. "not anything". However in a forum about Philosophy no thing is pointles to argue. If it was pointless to argue then why start a thread on it. The bringing up of BB theory was only to illustrate that the concept of nothing is present. Not anything is not anything. Eh was saying there is no not anything or no nothing, which is what I was arguing against.
“The universe is expanding into nothing.”
“The universe is not expanding into anything.”
The first statement suggests closure (unless one wishes to argue the concept of nothing.) The second leaves one hanging to beg the question, “So, what IS the universe expanding into?”
if it was expanding into something then it would not be the universe. [;)]
Agreed with Q and Kyleb. Except the universe cannot expand into anything. Anything would then be considered part of the universe since it exsist.
Originally posted by (Q)
“The universe is expanding into nothing.”
“The universe is not expanding into anything.”
The first statement suggests closure (unless one wishes to argue the concept of nothing.) The second leaves one hanging to beg the question, “So, what IS the universe expanding into?”
This is incorrect. The second statement (which means exactly the same thing as the first one, mind you) resolves the question of what the universe is "expanding into" perfectly. It isn't expanding into anything
Mentat
I agree. However, if someone who knew very little of cosmology asked you what the universe was expanding into, I think the second response would leave that person to continue to wonder what the universe was expanding into. That answer could even suggest that the universe is not expanding at all, “It isn’t expanding into anything.”
Maybe we need to come up with an entirely difference answer altogether. How about:
“The universe is expanding into a void.”
Void - the state of nonexistence.
Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat
I agree. However, if someone who knew very little of cosmology asked you what the universe was expanding into, I think the second response would leave that person to continue to wonder what the universe was expanding into. That answer could even suggest that the universe is not expanding at all, “It isn’t expanding into anything.”
Maybe we need to come up with an entirely difference answer altogether. How about:
“The universe is expanding into a void.”
Void - the state of nonexistence.
Well, it doe stand to reason that if the universe is not expanding into anything, the question of what it is expanding into is entirely moot, but I suppose someone might still ask it (perhaps if they don't believe me). Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light [6)].
Also, the view is not that the universe is expanding into a void. It is that the universe is not expanding into anything (I feel like I'm repeating myself [;)]). A void is something.
Mentat
I'm surprised you disagree with that answer. The definition of void is a state of non-existence. Everything that can be considered to exist must be part of the universe. Anything that does not exist is not part of the universe.
My head is beginning to hurt. [;)]
anythng that does not exist is not part of anything at all (Q). [;)]
anythng that does not exist is not part of anything at all (Q).
Precisely, and that is what the universe is expanding into.[8)]
that is circular logic. [s(]
that is circular logic.
Come now - I was joking. [;)]
This is ridiculous, we are all saying the same thing with different words.
Not anything means nothing. Void means nothing. Non-exsistence means nothing. Mentat says there is no nothing because nothing does not exsist there fore you cannot say there is nothig. (my summing up of what I think you are saying, please tell me if I am incorrect). Clearly the English language has taken the concept of nothing (non exsistence, void, whatever) and had to place it as a noun even though it is the very opposite of a noun. Because the language treats it as a noun it causes people to think that this is a paradoxal statement. The concept of void is not incorrect, simply the use of it in our laguage. Our language lacks the complexity to convey certain concepts without cheating itself sometimes. This is what we are stuck in and why it frustrates everyone. No one here (presuming) is mistaking "nothing" to be something. It is simply the language that we speak has placed "nothing" as a noun and thus causes confusion. Our language does not contain anti-nouns. However if it did and had its own gramarical rules, I'm sure the words nothing, void, non-exsistent, would all be covered by it. We all agree in concept, it is the language that is messing us up.
However i cannot place Eh in this agreement because I'm not sure that he agrees that the concept of void is even correct (correct me as well if I am mistaking your asumption). From what I have read from your posts is that you believe that the universe is infinitley material. Though you have said that the universe could be finite and still the concept of void or nothing be incorrect. That logic I am still hoping you will explain. I would be most interested in hearing it. Or possibly I have misread your any posts as on occassion you have pointed out I have before and you have misread mine on occasion.
Oh Mentat said:
Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light
I know what you're saying here and I would agree that that would be a stupid question to ask after hearing that there is nothing faster than the speed of light. Unless you could believe that speed could be infinesimal. Which of course the only thing faster than the speed of light would be teleportation and that could be argued not to be speed since you were not in the middle of point A and B at any given time of the travel. I'm not sure if I would classify teleportation speed, but seems like that would be a good debate.
If it is true that nothing travels faster than the speed of light and you said nothing does, then someone would be stupid to ask that question. But I don't think that is a relevant hypothetical question pertaining to the arguement. If someone says that the universe is expanding into nothing, then the answer to "what is the universe expanding into" is nothing. Like if i said A = B and then someone said what does B =? A of course. We all agree that the universe is expanding in some form or fashion. Which means it is in movement. It does not move into anything because if there was anything it would be part of the universe. Saying the universe is expanding into nothing is not saying it is expanding into anything (see my above post) And it is not saying that the universe is not expanding. It simply means that there is void, non-exsistence in which exsistence can move into at anytime and make it an area (something).
Ishop, glad to see that you have grasped the concept rather superbly.
(Q), a void exists. If it exists, then it is not nothing, but something. If it is something, then it exists within the universe. The universe is not expanding into a void, it is not expanding into anything at all.
quantumcarl
Mar24-03, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, it doe stand to reason that if the universe is not expanding into anything, the question of what it is expanding into is entirely moot, but I suppose someone might still ask it (perhaps if they don't believe me). Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light [6)].
Also, the view is not that the universe is expanding into a void. It is that the universe is not expanding into anything (I feel like I'm repeating myself [;)]). A void is something.
To be able to quantify "nothing" in any way, shape or form means it exists as a concept. Therefore it becomes apparent, to me, that we are unable to conceptualize the absence of everything... as is described by any description we put to that sort of (non)phenomenon.
As has been suggested, we need to use counter intuition to deal with this subject... or lack thereof!
Furthermore... a state AND a non-state... by all the current standards of physics, hyperphysics, philosophy and so on... regardless of its content or non-content is still a part of the uniniverse... as is revealed by the definition of a universe which encompasses all states... non-states... uncertainty or certainty... etc..
Mentat
If a void is defined as non-existence, how can it exist as something? That is a contradiction.
Non-existence is not part of the universe.
arivero
Mar24-03, 02:30 AM
For an atomist, a void is defined as the container of distances.
Yes, the atomists got over the seemingly contradictory concept of the void. They did accept that while the void was empty of all matter and substance we normally refer to as being, it was still "something" in the fact that is was the spatial reality.
Today, the empty space is still often called a void in physics, even though it is not as empty as the atomists would have believed.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
To be able to quantify "nothing" in any way, shape or form means it exists as a concept. Therefore it becomes apparent, to me, that we are unable to conceptualize the absence of everything... as is described by any description we put to that sort of (non)phenomenon.
As has been suggested, we need to use counter intuition to deal with this subject... or lack thereof!
Furthermore... a state AND a non-state... by all the current standards of physics, hyperphysics, philosophy and so on... regardless of its content or non-content is still a part of the uniniverse... as is revealed by the definition of a universe which encompasses all states... non-states... uncertainty or certainty... etc..
It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them. To say that there is a void, outside of the universe, is wrong because a void is something. However, I'm not saying that there is a certain thing, called "nothing", that is out there either. I'm saying (and hopefully people will stop asking the same questions) that there isn't anything "out there", not a void, not empty space (which is technically a void anyway), nothing at all
quantumcarl
Mar24-03, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them. To say that there is a void, outside of the universe, is wrong because a void is something. However, I'm not saying that there is a certain thing, called "nothing", that is out there either. I'm saying (and hopefully people will stop asking the same questions) that there isn't anything "out there", not a void, not empty space (which is technically a void anyway), nothing at all
Well, in that case... I'm not goin' there.
Just being picky again, Mentat said:
It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them.
I would use dark as an example. Cold can actually be measured and it is the slow motion of particles tht causes it. Also in response to your reply to my last post....I have always said those things, they have just been misread I suppose.
he means as in absolute 0 "cold." just like absolute darkness such things do not exist in nature.
quantumcarl
Mar25-03, 01:04 PM
According to the title of this thread, it concerns an excercise in the "semantics" of "nothing".
Yet we have the author claiming that there are no semantics to the word nothing and that there can be only one meaning attached to the word when, truthfully, semantics involves the fact that there is an individual meaning to a word according to who is using the word.
We have mentat claiming that he and only he has the correct definition for the word "nothing". He is unbending and claims that if someone's semantic idea of the word does not match his semantic idea of the word... they are "wrong".
I think, perhaps, mentat might better have titled this thread
"My Philosophy Concerning Nothing"... so that his defensive posture could make a bit more sense to those participants concerned.
Moreover, mentat is arguing in support of his semantic understanding of "nothing" in an absolute vacuum of proof concerning his topic... relying soley on his and other's speculations which is the nature of a semantic debate.
Further to this, in a semantic debate or "excercise, no one participant is wrong, save for the one who makes such a claim.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
According to the title of this thread, it concerns an excercise in the "semantics" of "nothing".
Yet we have the author claiming that there are no semantics to the word nothing and that there can be only one meaning attached to the word when, truthfully, semantics involves the fact that there is an individual meaning to a word according to who is using the word.
We have mentat claiming that he and only he has the correct definition for the word "nothing". He is unbending and claims that if someone's semantic idea of the word does not match his semantic idea of the word... they are "wrong".
I think, perhaps, mentat might better have titled this thread
"My Philosophy Concerning Nothing"... so that his defensive posture could make a bit more sense to those participants concerned.
Moreover, mentat is arguing in support of his semantic understanding of "nothing" in an absolute vacuum of proof concerning his topic... relying soley on his and other's speculations which is the nature of a semantic debate.
Further to this, in a semantic debate or "excercise, no one participant is wrong, save for the one who makes such a claim.
"In a semantic debate, no one is wrong", are you kidding me? A semantic debate is as much a debate as any other kind, and in a debate there is at least one person who is wrong.
quantumcarl
Mar25-03, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
"In a semantic debate, no one is wrong", are you kidding me? A semantic debate is as much a debate as any other kind, and in a debate there is at least one person who is wrong.
I disagree. (And when I do so... it does not mean you are "wrong")
Semantics is the study of the "dual-meanings" of words. Even if someone came to this thread and said... "nothing is everything"... this would be their meaning and something they would attempt to prove... by way of debate.
If a word can have dual-meanings its bound to have even more meanings when two or more people are involved in a discussion concerning a word and its meaning.
It gets more tedious from here. No one meaning is correct, or incorrect, when dealing with a word as semantic as "nothing".
It may not be as tedious as studying the semantics of the word "love"... but close.
So, while it is prudent to state one's disagreement with a definition of a word... it is only destructive to the process of a discussion to say a definition is "wrong".
It is, by far, more constructive to say... convince me... baby!
However... in the case of scientific debate there are wrong points of view and definitions and there are right ones.
I might say an electron is a politician's demographic constituency when it is actually something that remains in, joins or leaves the orbit of an atom. In the case of my first statement, I would be way "wrong" because there is only one, established, meaning to the word "electron".
Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.
quantumcarl
Mar25-03, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.
If, indeed, your's is a scientific debate then it belongs in a scientific area of this forum. As it stands it is disguised as a philosophical debate by way of residing in the philosophy area. Perhaps moving the idea to a more rigorous audience and set of rules will help you explore "nowhere" and "nothing".
"Under the wieght of logical debate" this topic of yours, "nothing", is practically impossible to debate since nothing does not exist, by certain definitions of the word. Debating something that does not exist can be draining and is usually reserved for experienced script writers with FOX or COLUMBIA PICTURES.
Now, I'd like you to note... in a philisophical way, how there was no post... or... "nothing" here... before I put a post here... and that, in light of this... no post existing here has helped to facilitate the posting of this post.
If there had been a post here, where this one is, I would not have been able to post here. And this, philosophically and scientifically, is called the "potential" for "something" due to the absence of "something".
That is why I tend to define "nothing" as the potential for "something" to occur... (in a philosophical manner)... and after the manner of Lao Tzu's works from 600 bc.
OMG these word games are going to drive me completely and utterly mad.
Nothing does have semantics, it can be interpreted as meaning absolute nothing, or as an area where there is nothing except for space and time, or an area where there is space and time and air and a room but nothing else.
That is why it is easiest to say the universe isn't expanding into anything.
But as has been brought up, that has semantics as well, because you could interpret it as the universe isn't expanding at all.
My answer, the universe isn't expanding into anything, it is simply expanding.
It's not perfect but I can't take this anymore.
Loren Booda
Mar25-03, 11:00 PM
Pardon impossible, to send to Siberia.
Pardon, impossible to send to Siberia.
Nothing means "not anything," rather than "not...anything."
quantumcarl,
American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "semantic":
"Of or pertaining to meaning."
This is the kind of semanticism I was talking about, I had not idea that the word actually had to do with dual meanings.
Don't make Philosophy and Science mutually exclusive. They are not, and while mine is a Philosophical debate, it has a lot of basis on scientific principlesk - and this is what I meant by "scientific debate" (I also meant that the specific debate, of what the universe is "expanding into", was a scientific debate).
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Pardon impossible, to send to Siberia.
Pardon, impossible to send to Siberia.
Nothing means "not anything," rather than "not...anything."
Say what? I caught the difference between the first two statements, but not between the last two ("not anything" and "not...anything").
Mentat
Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.
I have not seen your logic as yet – but only your view.
Loren Booda
Mar27-03, 12:22 AM
The equivalents "nothing" and "not everything" are not always equivalent to "not...everything." Thus "I can bring nothing to mind" is the same as "I can bring not anything in mind," but not "I can not bring anything to mind."
Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat
Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.
I have not seen your logic as yet – but only your view.
So you disagree that "nothing" can be replaced with "not anything", and still retain the meaning, while eliminating foolish debates about what "nothing" is?
Originally posted by Loren Booda
The equivalents "nothing" and "not everything" are not always equivalent to "not...everything." Thus "I can bring nothing to mind" is the same as "I can bring not anything in mind," but not "I can not bring anything to mind."
"I can bring not anything to mind" is grammatically flawed. It makes no sense.
Also, if you are saying that saying that there is not anything outside of the universe is not the same as saying that there isn't anything outside of the universe, you may want to rethink your stance - as "isn't" is precisely equal to "is not".
The point I'm making is that when someone says that the universe is not expanding into anything, they might as well be saying that the universe is expanding into not anything, and the only reason that they don't is because this is a grammatically flawed sentence structure (at least in this language), and would probably confuse someone.
Mentat
No, I discount the fact that you think you're "logic" is right and everyone else's "view" is wrong.
Why do you think yours is the definitive answer?
You couldn't come up with a good argument as to why 'void' could not be used.
Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat
No, I discount the fact that you think you're "logic" is right and everyone else's "view" is wrong.
Why do you think yours is the definitive answer?
You couldn't come up with a good argument as to why 'void' could not be used.
First off, I adress every argument, because every argument has merit. I don't just say, "I'm right, your wrong", and close my mind to new ideas.
Secondly, I did come up with a good argument as to why "void" couldn't be used; a void is something. All voids are within the universe, because the universe is everything. When someone answers the question, "what is the universe expanding into", with "nothing", they shouldn't mean that it is expanding into a void (because that's something), they should mean that it isn't expanding into anything.
But as I stated before, "void" is a state of non-existence therefore, it is a perfectly valid term. Anything that is non-extentent is not part of the universe.
Originally posted by (Q)
But as I stated before, "void" is a state of non-existence therefore, it is a perfectly valid term. Anything that is non-extentent is not part of the universe.
Forgive my persistence, (Q), but look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing.
This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).
There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing). If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.
Mentat
look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing
True, I should not have used the word “thing” in my explanation – but so goes the English language when trying to formulate explanations. You should focus more on the word “non-existent.”
This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).
Not according to the definitions I found which define a void as being a “state of non-existence,” which does not have the same meaning as “nothing” and most certainly does not mean something.
There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing).
I disagree. The universe must expand into a state of non-existence in order for it to exist. If it does not expand into this state, then whatever the universe expands into must therefore exist, hence it is already part of the universe.
If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.
Again I would have to disagree. A void is not a place – if it were, it would exist and could not be categorized as a state of non-existence. It would also not be a state of less existence – that would imply something does in fact exist, but there is less of it.
Space, consisting entirely of nothing, no particles or energy or anything whatsoever, can also be defined as a void – simply because space does not really exist, it is the distance between two objects. There is no space beyond our universe because there are no objects in which to provide a reference.
Forgive my persistence, (Q)
No problem, maybe we'll eventually define that which cannot be defined. ;)
Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat
look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing
True, I should not have used the word “thing” in my explanation – but so goes the English language when trying to formulate explanations. You should focus more on the word “non-existent.”
This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).
Not according to the definitions I found which define a void as being a “state of non-existence,” which does not have the same meaning as “nothing” and most certainly does not mean something.
There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing).
I disagree. The universe must expand into a state of non-existence in order for it to exist. If it does not expand into this state, then whatever the universe expands into must therefore exist, hence it is already part of the universe.
If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.
Again I would have to disagree. A void is not a place – if it were, it would exist and could not be categorized as a state of non-existence. It would also not be a state of less existence – that would imply something does in fact exist, but there is less of it.
Space, consisting entirely of nothing, no particles or energy or anything whatsoever, can also be defined as a void – simply because space does not really exist, it is the distance between two objects. There is no space beyond our universe because there are no objects in which to provide a reference.
Forgive my persistence, (Q)
No problem, maybe we'll eventually define that which cannot be defined. ;)
To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on. [Important point:] Space...is...something
chosenone
Mar29-03, 01:44 PM
try this one on for size.2-d in 3-d thinking.if you take a circle or a square or a triangle on a piece of paper"2-d"and turn it side ways as to only see the side of it,the circle,square,and triangle would become a line,so these 3-d objects side ways are all lines,with this line you can make it bigger,or smaller,then when you turn it around,you've changed the shapes size without destroying it in the process.so what happens if you take a circle,turn it side ways,shrink the line as small as you can get it,when you turn it around,you will get a circle,inside the circle is space,no matter how small you make the line you will always get space inside the circle when you turn the line around!thus infinite space!!!!!!!!but the fun part is when you get the cirlce with the space in the middle you put a dot in the middle,which is a line sideways then turn it around and get a cirlce,infinite space!
Mentat
To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on.
Either you are wrong or every dictionary is wrong. I wonder which it is?
Noun: the state of nonexistence.
http://define.ansme.com/words/v/void.html
noun: the state of nonexistence.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=void&ls=a
[Important point:] Space is something
Space is NOT something. Particles exist in space – the gravitational field permeates space – light travels through space – all matter in the universe is contained in space - but space is not something. Space is simply the distance between two objects.
From the same dictionaries:
Noun: an empty area (usually bounded in some way between things.)
Noun: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.
Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat
To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on.
Either you are wrong or every dictionary is wrong. I wonder which it is?
[Important point:] Space is something
Space is NOT something. Particles exist in space – the gravitational field permeates space – light travels through space – all matter in the universe is contained in space - but space is not something. Space is simply the distance between two objects.
From the same dictionaries:
Noun: an empty area (usually bounded in some way between things.)
Noun: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.
The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity. Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...
The Classical view is that which your dictionaries describe, but that is not what modern science has yielded.
Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable) and I will take that definition above any dictionary.
Mentat
The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity.
That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.
Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...
You are talking about things that exist in space and not of space itself. What is space made of? How is space active? How does space change?
Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable)
Then by all means, please describe for us all exactly what a void is. What is it made of? How do things exist in a void if a void is something tangible?
IF you cannot describe what a void is or what space is, then your logic is flawed and you are wrong.
I will take that definition above any dictionary.
Should we just chuck out all the dictionaries in favor of your definition?
You keep stating that a void IS something, yet have not explained exactly what that something is. Therefore, your argument has been that of argument from authority - and that is a standard fallacy.
chosenone
Mar31-03, 10:33 AM
what if space was something,and particles dont exist in space,but inside space.what if energy pushes its way in existence from underneath the dimension of space,and are the displacement of space,like putting a object in water.the energy pushes space out of the way as it moves through it,leaving a wake as it passes by of collapsing spacetime behind it!
Q,
Space is just another name for the gravitational field. While less noticeable to us as matter, fields are just as real. In fact, in quantum theory fields are everything, and point particles owe their existence them. So it would seem that space is as much a thing as anything else in the universe.
John Gribbon wrote something about the reality of fields and particles in a recent book. The section might be online somewhere, and I will try to find it and post a link.
Originally posted by (Q)
That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.
your on. now prove it. [6)]
Originally posted by (Q)
[B]Mentat
The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity.
That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.
It has everything to do with it - didn't you even read my post? I never claimed to be more intelligent then the people who write dictionaries, or than anyone else. I do, however, have a fairly good knowledge of Relativity, and the afore-quoted dicionary definitions contradict it.
Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...
You are talking about things that exist in space and not of space itself. What is space made of? How is space active? How does space change?
I am talking about space itself (not the things in it, as you say). Relativity hinges on the fact that space (and time) are not just the back drop for energy and matter to act out their roles, but that spacetime itself is a key player. Read up on Relativity, it'll answer your questions of how space is active, and how it changes. As far as what it's made of; Quantum Mechanics postulates that it is a gravitational field (I advise you to study that as well, before contradicting it).
Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable)
Then by all means, please describe for us all exactly what a void is. What is it made of? How do things exist in a void if a void is something tangible?
IF you cannot describe what a void is or what space is, then your logic is flawed and you are wrong.
A scientific void is an area where there is no matter, and an indeterminate amount of energy (since the amount of energy, in any area, is undeterminable). The fact that a void is an area, clearly implies that it exists withing a certain amount of space.
I will take that definition above any dictionary.
Should we just chuck out all the dictionaries in favor of your definition?
It's not my definition. I've already shown you that two of the most rigorously defined theories (Relativity and QM) of physics are what provide "my definition", as you call it.
You keep stating that a void IS something, yet have not explained exactly what that something is. Therefore, your argument has been that of argument from authority - and that is a standard fallacy.
What do you mean by "argument from authority"?
Originally posted by kyleb
your on. now prove it. [6)]
[t)] I appreciate your support, kyleb, but concur that there are a great deal of people, who are more knowledgable then I am.
Mentat
Read up on Relativity, it'll answer your questions of how space is active, and how it changes.
Nope, I want to hear it from you. You are the one making the claims – not relativity.
As far as what it's made of; Quantum Mechanics postulates that it is a gravitational field (I advise you to study that as well, before contradicting it).
As I mentioned before, the gravitational field permeates space. Space is simply the distance between objects.
Well, it looks like you completely failed on those. Lets move on to your definition of a void.
The fact that a void is an area, clearly implies that it exists withing a certain amount of space
That is the definition of a void that describes a state of nonexistence. Once anything enters that void, it is no longer considered a void, it becomes space because now there is reference of distance between objects. And currently, there is nothing in our universe that can be considered a void, is there?
Hold on a minute – that just so happens to describe what the universe is expanding into – a void.
It's not my definition. I've already shown you that two of the most rigorously defined theories (Relativity and QM) of physics are what provide "my definition", as you call it.
Since I provided you with references, perhaps you could do the same to back up your argument.
Cite me references that clearly define space as being the gravitational field. As well, references to support that a void exists in our universe. I'll be happy to concede my position if you can.
From Sten Odenwald's "Ask an Astronomer" website at http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/qanda.html
What is space itself made of?
According to general relativity, 'space' is just another name for the gravitational field of the universe. As such, we stand in relation to space what photons of light stand in relation to the electromagnetic field. Space is just another physical field in nature, and at its smallest scales, it dissolves away into some kind of quantum 'haze' where our ideas of time and space no longer have much meaning.
Hope that helps. I'll try to dig up some links with more details.
We carry with us two distinct conceptions of space. We invented measured space. We did so because it’s useful. But thanks to 17th Century thinkers such as Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes, we took measured space one step further and began to visualize a universal, three dimensional gridwork within which any thing can be precisely located. We have so abstracted this grid that we believe that the entire universe fits snugly inside of it. But the grid is supposedly always there, independent of the things in it. The grid, considered in itself, turns our attention away from the stuff of our world. Nevertheless, it has become the very definition of space according to our “default philosophy,” the set of beliefs about our world that is so deep that it feels like common sense.
http://www.smallpieces.com/space/space5c.html [/quote]
Hope that helps. [:)]
(edited to remove first reference)
I'll just throw this out and let you raptors do the rest:
If necessary, we can always describe a given space as a surface existing in a higher-dimensional space.
Yes, that is the classic concept of empty space. But the point was that in modern physics, that definition is wrong.
Crackpots however, will continue to insist how relativity is incorrect because they can't let go of outdated concepts of space and time.
Eh
I should have read more of that reference site I posted - it was full of crap.
I have no problem with relativity and could not refute it if I tried. It makes too much sense.
But I still stand my ground with the definition of space being the distance between objects.
[:)]
Originally posted by (Q)
Eh
I should have read more of that reference site I posted - it was full of crap.
I have no problem with relativity and could not refute it if I tried. It makes too much sense.
But I still stand my ground with the definition of space being the distance between objects.
[:)]
Even in spite of actually getting a site that showed otherwise? Do you now disagree with QM, and expect to be right?
Originally posted by (Q)
[B]Mentat
Read up on Relativity, it'll answer your questions of how space is active, and how it changes.
Nope, I want to hear it from you. You are the one making the claims – not relativity.
WRONG. It is relativity that shows that space warps and changes. What do you think gravity is?
As far as what it's made of; Quantum Mechanics postulates that it is a gravitational field (I advise you to study that as well, before contradicting it).
As I mentioned before, the gravitational field permeates space. Space is simply the distance between objects.
This is just wrong. I don't care what you've mentioned before, Quantum Mechanics states otherwise, and I'm going to have to go with the scientific opinion over yours, sorry.
Well, it looks like you completely failed on those. Lets move on to your definition of a void.
This kind of attitude isn't helping anything. I haven't failed until you can prove to me that your opinion of what space does and does not do is better than Einstein's.
The fact that a void is an area, clearly implies that it exists withing a certain amount of space
That is the definition of a void that describes a state of nonexistence. Once anything enters that void, it is no longer considered a void, it becomes space because now there is reference of distance between objects. And currently, there is nothing in our universe that can be considered a void, is there?
If there is a void, it is within the universe. The universe = everything. A void = something. All "somethings" are within "everything".
Hold on a minute – that just so happens to describe what the universe is expanding into – a void.
If you insist that are universe is expanding "into" something, then you have to contend with BB theorists who say otherwise.
It's not my definition. I've already shown you that two of the most rigorously defined theories (Relativity and QM) of physics are what provide "my definition", as you call it.
Since I provided you with references, perhaps you could do the same to back up your argument.
Cite me references that clearly define space as being the gravitational field. As well, references to support that a void exists in our universe. I'll be happy to concede my position if you can.
See Eh's post. I shouldn't have to post links, you should learn to pick up a book on a subject, before making up your own opinions, and stating them as fact.
I apologize for the slightly heated nature of this post. I hope that you will actually listen to what I'm saying, but if not I can only get more and more frustrated with talking to someone who is content to plug their ears and scream "SPACE IS EXPANDING INTO A VOID" over and over again.
What do you think gravity is?
Gravity is an effect of mass. Are you asserting it is an effect of space?
This is just wrong. I don't care what you've mentioned before, Quantum Mechanics states otherwise, and I'm going to have to go with the scientific opinion over yours, sorry.
There you go again with argument from authority and you’ve added argument from ignorance – two fallacies.
I haven't failed until you can prove to me that your opinion of what space does and does not do is better than Einstein's.
I am not making any claims that space “does and does not do” – those are your claims. I am saying that space is the distance between objects. You are claiming that space does things as if it is some sort of entity. That is completely wrong. And btw – don’t try and invoke Einstein here. I’m not debating with him – I want to hear your explanations. And so far, your explanations have been fallacious.
A void = something
Again with the argument from authority fallacy. Why do you insist on continually making statements without any explanations? Your logic thus far has been; A=B. No explanation – no references – nothing valid whatsoever. Simply stating that a void is something holds nothing qualitative. Even after I gave you plenty of references that stated a void is a state of nonexistence, you merely brushed them aside and continued to follow your fallacious argument.
If you insist that are universe is expanding "into" something, then you have to contend with BB theorists who say otherwise.
Andre Vilenkin imagined a nothingness that was the complete negation of all conceivable attributes that we might attach to the particular fields within spacetime, or even to spacetime itself. It represented a state containing no fields, time, or space. The concept of dimensionality was also irrelevant, and without time it was the ultimate state of non-existence. Heinz Pagels vividly describes this condition in his book {\bf Perfect Symmetry} as,
“The nothingness 'before' the creation of the universe is the most complete void that we can imagine -- no space, time or matter existed. It is a world without place, without duration or eternity, without number...yet this unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence -- a necessary consequence of physical laws.”
I shouldn't have to post links, you should learn to pick up a book on a subject, before making up your own opinions, and stating them as fact.
Which is exactly what you are doing. I am providing well argued opinions based on references. You are providing nothing but authoritative statements based on nothing. You have not once yet qualified a single claim on your behalf.
I hope that you will actually listen to what I'm saying, but if not I can only get more and more frustrated with talking to someone who is content to plug their ears and scream "SPACE IS EXPANDING INTO A VOID" over and over again.
Then try and support your claims rather then stating everyone is wrong and you are right. And try to do it with credibility as opposed to fallacy.
Vilenkin's theory does not say the universe is expanding into something. What it does is proclaim that the laws of physics (any arbitrary laws I might add) are fundemental, not space-time.
Originally posted by (Q)
What do you think gravity is?
Gravity is an effect of mass. Are you asserting it is an effect of space?
General Relativity is based on this premise, ask anyone who knows anything about General Relativity. If you want a direct source, read the book "Relativity, the Special and General Theories", by Albert Einstein. For a breif review, read the first couple of chapters of "The Elegant Universe", by Brian Greene.
This is just wrong. I don't care what you've mentioned before, Quantum Mechanics states otherwise, and I'm going to have to go with the scientific opinion over yours, sorry.
There you go again with argument from authority and you’ve added argument from ignorance – two fallacies.
"Argument from authority and argument from ignorance". I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. I'm merely telling you that since a void exists in a certain amount of space, it can be measured, and is thus something. IOW, if something has spacial extent, it is something.
I haven't failed until you can prove to me that your opinion of what space does and does not do is better than Einstein's.
I am not making any claims that space “does and does not do” – those are your claims. I am saying that space is the distance between objects. You are claiming that space does things as if it is some sort of entity. That is completely wrong. And btw – don’t try and invoke Einstein here. I’m not debating with him – I want to hear your explanations. And so far, your explanations have been fallacious.
Space is an entity, General and Special Relativity are based on this premise (read any book on the subject, preferably Einstein's own "Relativity: The Special and General Theories").
A void = something
Again with the argument from authority fallacy. Why do you insist on continually making statements without any explanations? Your logic thus far has been; A=B. No explanation – no references – nothing valid whatsoever. Simply stating that a void is something holds nothing qualitative. Even after I gave you plenty of references that stated a void is a state of nonexistence, you merely brushed them aside and continued to follow your fallacious argument.
See above, for my reason to state that a void is something.
Andre Vilenkin imagined a nothingness that was the complete negation of all conceivable attributes that we might attach to the particular fields within spacetime, or even to spacetime itself. It represented a state containing no fields, time, or space. The concept of dimensionality was also irrelevant, and without time it was the ultimate state of non-existence. Heinz Pagels vividly describes this condition in his book {\bf Perfect Symmetry} as,
“The nothingness 'before' the creation of the universe is the most complete void that we can imagine -- no space, time or matter existed. It is a world without place, without duration or eternity, without number...yet this unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence -- a necessary consequence of physical laws.”
Why does this scientist say that "nothingness" existed "before" the universe, while at the same time saying that "nothingness" does not exist within the framework of time? This is contradictory, isn't it?
I shouldn't have to post links, you should learn to pick up a book on a subject, before making up your own opinions, and stating them as fact.
Which is exactly what you are doing. I am providing well argued opinions based on references. You are providing nothing but authoritative statements based on nothing. You have not once yet qualified a single claim on your behalf.
I have now.
BTW, when I mentioned books, I was actually - seriously - suggesting that you read a book on Relativity (even if just a breif outline), and understand it, before making claims that contradict it.
I hope that you will actually listen to what I'm saying, but if not I can only get more and more frustrated with talking to someone who is content to plug their ears and scream "SPACE IS EXPANDING INTO A VOID" over and over again.
Then try and support your claims rather then stating everyone is wrong and you are right. And try to do it with credibility as opposed to fallacy.
I'm not stating that everyone is wrong. I'm stating that Einstein was right - in saying that space and time are entities, that warp and change. I'm also stating that something which has spacial extent, which can be measured, must exist, must be "something" - isn't this the logical conclusion?
Mentat
This is pointless. You cannot formulate an intelligent argument. Telling people to go read this book and go read that book is not a basis for discussion - it is simply evasion.
What is the point of you being here when all you can say is relativity says so, quantum mechanics says so, Einstein says so, string theory says so? That merely indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
ask anyone who knows anything about General Relativity... General and Special Relativity are based on this premise (read any book on the subject
Statements like these demonstrate you have no understanding of the subject matter therefore, you should not try and refer to them in an argument.
"Argument from authority and argument from ignorance". I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
They are called fallacies - and although you are unfamiliar with the types of fallacies, your usage of them is considerable.
I was actually - seriously - suggesting that you read a book on Relativity (even if just a breif outline), and understand it, before making claims that contradict it.
For someone pretending to be something they are not, I find that totally ironic and laughable.
I'm also stating that something which has spacial extent, which can be measured, must exist, must be "something" - isn't this the logical conclusion?
It is completely illogical. There must be reference to something in order for you to take measurements. That is what I've been trying to get into your pea brain.
heusdens
Apr3-03, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by CJames
OMG these word games are going to drive me completely and utterly mad.
Nothing does have semantics, it can be interpreted as meaning absolute nothing, or as an area where there is nothing except for space and time, or an area where there is space and time and air and a room but nothing else.
That is why it is easiest to say the universe isn't expanding into anything.
But as has been brought up, that has semantics as well, because you could interpret it as the universe isn't expanding at all.
My answer, the universe isn't expanding into anything, it is simply expanding.
It's not perfect but I can't take this anymore.
In fact you are right when you say the universe isn't expanding at all. It merely seems to expand, because of the doppler-shift vs. distance relation. We have to recognize the fact, that we don't have absolute measuring units. Applying different measuring units, would absolute change nothing in the physical world. If the distance between far away galaxies would be our measuering unit (a very unpractical one) we would not conclude that the universe was expanding. Instead we would conclude that anything material was shrinking in size!
Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat
This is pointless. You cannot formulate an intelligent argument. Telling people to go read this book and go read that book is not a basis for discussion - it is simply evasion.
You asked for a source. Those books are two of my sources.
What is the point of you being here when all you can say is relativity says so, quantum mechanics says so, Einstein says so, string theory says so? That merely indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
Look, I am giving you a reference so that you know that these ideas are not just mine - which is what you asked me to do - and you aren't paying attention. It would appear to me that you don't know what you're talking about, unless of course you have read something on Relativity, and simply disagree.
ask anyone who knows anything about General Relativity... General and Special Relativity are based on this premise (read any book on the subject
Statements like these demonstrate you have no understanding of the subject matter therefore, you should not try and refer to them in an argument.
Einstein postulated that gravity = acclerated motion. Through Special Relativity, he showed that spacetime warps, due to motion (this is over-simplification, but I don't see why I should have to explain all of Relativity to you now, (as I said before) there are plenty of books for that, and if you are too lazy to pick one up and read it, that't your problem). He thus concluded that gravity (which is the same thing as accelerated motion) is a warping of spacetime.
"Argument from authority and argument from ignorance". I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
They are called fallacies - and although you are unfamiliar with the types of fallacies, your usage of them is considerable.
Example?
I was actually - seriously - suggesting that you read a book on Relativity (even if just a breif outline), and understand it, before making claims that contradict it.
For someone pretending to be something they are not, I find that totally ironic and laughable.
What am I pretending to be? I have spent the time reading about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (not to say I understand them perfectly, but I have a much better understanding than before), no one just posted all of the information/postulates of these theories to me, on some forum on the internet. It is foolish of you to ask me to explain these theories to you - in any thread - in full, as this would be impossible. I can tell you what they postulate, and you don't have to believe me; but if you ever decide to check for yourself, you'll see that I'm right (at least about the postulates of the theories, you don't have to agree with these theories if you don't want to).
I'm also stating that something which has spacial extent, which can be measured, must exist, must be "something" - isn't this the logical conclusion?
It is completely illogical. There must be reference to something in order for you to take measurements. That is what I've been trying to get into your pea brain.
Watch the insults, they are unnecessary, and can get a thread locked.
Yes, there must be a reference to something for you to measure it, but it can still be measured. If you say that the universe is expanding into a void, then the universe would be a perfectly good reference, from which to measure the spacial extent of the void (of course, the fact that it has spacial extent means that it's something, and would thus be within the universe; a point which seems to be entirely beyond you).
Originally posted by heusdens
In fact you are right when you say the universe isn't expanding at all. It merely seems to expand, because of the doppler-shift vs. distance relation. We have to recognize the fact, that we don't have absolute measuring units. Applying different measuring units, would absolute change nothing in the physical world. If the distance between far away galaxies would be our measuering unit (a very unpractical one) we would not conclude that the universe was expanding. Instead we would conclude that anything material was shrinking in size!
Well, you can believe that the universe isn't expanding at all (and you may be right), but that's not what it looks like CJames was saying.
In fact you are right when you say the universe isn't expanding at all. It merely seems to expand, because of the doppler-shift vs. distance relation. We have to recognize the fact, that we don't have absolute measuring units.You are essentially correct, except that we do have "absolute" measuring units such as meters and seconds. The fact is, more and more meters are appearing between each individual galaxy. You can look at it as though the galaxies themselves are contracting, along with there own meters and yardsticks, and the end result is the same. A greater amount of distance between galaxies, in relation to us. Expansion is clearer, however, and that is why we call it so.
heusdens
Apr4-03, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by CJames
You are essentially correct, except that we do have "absolute" measuring units such as meters and seconds. The fact is, more and more meters are appearing between each individual galaxy. You can look at it as though the galaxies themselves are contracting, along with there own meters and yardsticks, and the end result is the same. A greater amount of distance between galaxies, in relation to us. Expansion is clearer, however, and that is why we call it so.
They are not "absolute" they are just an arbitrary measuring units, which for our purposes are very practical (the unit size shrinks with the local material sizes).
Physically though we could have chosen the distance between remote galaxy clusters as our measuring unit, and the physical laws should remain the same.
But I haven't seen a physical cause for the shrinking of all local matter (from protons, atoms to sun, solar system, galaxy, local groups, clusters).
This should be explainable in the same way as in the other measuring unit system (which comes up with "space expansion").
The contradication here is that we can deal with the change of size of material forms (in relation to other material forms), but to me it is a silly explenation to say that material forms change in size in relation to the surrounding space (or vice versa), since we can't measure in empty space itself, only things in space.
There is some peculiarity there. Even when "getting used" to this explenation of "space expansion" thing, up to today I find it a very remarkable and contradicationary concept, which seems to violate our basic concepts of what space is, and how we can measure things.
It might still be that future insights in this issue proof the concept of space expansion to be all wrong.
heusdens
Apr4-03, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, you can believe that the universe isn't expanding at all (and you may be right), but that's not what it looks like CJames was saying.
It is not a matter of "belief", I just was arguing that measuring units are arbitrarily, and we conclude the fact about the "expansion of space" merely from our local measuring units. We have no way of knowing if our measuring units themselves are constant. There is no absolute measuring unit.
Suppose we choose the distance to a far away galaxy cluster to be our unit of measurement. Then the distance between us and that galaxy cluster would be a constant. Galaxy clusters far away would seem to recede from us, and nearer by they would seem to approximate us, and so would all local stuff seem to shrink in size uniformly.
This last fact would be contradictionary in itself. Beacuse not only the distance from the earth to the sun would shrink, but also the diameter of the sun and earth, and also all atoms and particles would shrink in size. Just try to imagine how such a uniform shrinking in size of all local material objects could take place, this seems a gross contradiction.
Would the speed of light be still the same, in this new measuring unit framework?
Theoretically though, I see no objection in using another measuring unit, even if it is a very large one. The physical laws would have to remain the same. But it seems something does not fit very well when using this large measuring unit.
Someone can explain me why?
Well, heusdens, string theory (my favorite candidate for the T.O.E.) does state that the percieved expansion is actually also a contraction. You see, we are using a form of measure that relies on the movement of "vibrational" strings (strings that move within the flat dimensions), and that form of measure is inversely proportional to the form of measure that is dependent on "wound" strings (strings that are "wound over" the flat dimensions (moving in the curved ones)). Perhaps this view fits your reasoning?
(Q), what I'm trying to say is that I could tell you what a given theory postulates - like Relativity postulating the warping of spacetime - and I can tell you about a couple of the books that I've read that teach the theory in layman's terms (I have also studied some of the math, but I don't understand all of it, so I'm trying to exceed my current level of mathematical understanding, and planning to try and really tackle these tough theories later), but you don't have to believe me, you can read the books for yourself.
When I started coming to the PFs, I didn't know much about Big Bang theory (for example; there were other topics, but this is one of them). The people here told me about the postulates of the theory, and went out and read some of the books, and now I understand a lot of (though not all of) the parts of the theory. Notice, the members didn't try to teach me every little detail about the postulates of BB theory - nor did they try to teach me how the scientists, who work on BB theory, came up with it in the first place - they just gave me an over-view of the postulates, a couple of references, and (since I am easily motivated to learn something new) the insentive to learn what I could about it.
heusdens
Apr4-03, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, heusdens, string theory (my favorite candidate for the T.O.E.) does state that the percieved expansion is actually also a contraction. You see, we are using a form of measure that relies on the movement of "vibrational" strings (strings that move within the flat dimensions), and that form of measure is inversely proportional to the form of measure that is dependent on "wound" strings (strings that are "wound over" the flat dimensions (moving in the curved ones)). Perhaps this view fits your reasoning?
Firstly I only have some basic knowledge in string theory, and i am not quite sure I understand what you mean. Secondly I am very suspicious about TOE and also about string theory, for the reason that it is an artificial mathematical construct of reality, which is not based on any experimental data.
For practical purposes it is near to impossible to design an experiment in which we can investigate matter at the size level of strings (Planck length).
Originally posted by heusdens
Firstly I only have some basic knowledge in string theory, and i am not quite sure I understand what you mean. Secondly I am very suspicious about TOE and also about string theory, for the reason that it is an artificial mathematical construct of reality, which is not based on any experimental data.
For practical purposes it is near to impossible to design an experiment in which we can investigate matter at the size level of strings (Planck length).
1) I recommend Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", for starters. AFAIK, there is not better starting place.
2) Just because it is currently impossible to verify string theory with experimentation, doesn't mean that it will always be so.
heusdens
Apr4-03, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
1) I recommend Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", for starters. AFAIK, there is not better starting place.
2) Just because it is currently impossible to verify string theory with experimentation, doesn't mean that it will always be so.
1) Thanks. I hope to read that book.
2) Yes, but I hope you recognize the problem. The model of the atom etc. were only done after practical experiments were made at that level of matter. For string theory it works the other way around.
I don't think it is very usefull if theory development goes miles forward to practical experiments.
And pls. recognize you need an accelarator the size of the solar system to create energies needed to investigate at the Planck lenght, so it can be stated that such experiments will not be carried out for the next hundred years or more (at least), if ever.
Why develop a theory which can not be verified for hundred or more years?
Originally posted by heusdens
1) Thanks. I hope to read that book.
2) Yes, but I hope you recognize the problem. The model of the atom etc. were only done after practical experiments were made at that level of matter. For string theory it works the other way around.
I don't think it is very usefull if theory development goes miles forward to practical experiments.
And pls. recognize you need an accelarator the size of the solar system to create energies needed to investigate at the Planck lenght, so it can be stated that such experiments will not be carried out for the next hundred years or more (at least), if ever.
Why develop a theory which can not be verified for hundred or more years?
Because it is so perfect. It's true that it can't be verified, but it unifies QM and GR; it explains Gravity and all of the rest of the forces; it explains the cause of the BB; it explains BHs... a good few string theorists really just badly want it to be true. String Theorists (IMO) are following Einstein's footsteps, not just in their use of curvature to explain the "forces", but (more importantly) in their search for an elegance, or beauty, behind the physical phenomena.
heusdens
Apr4-03, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Because it is so perfect. It's true that it can't be verified, but it unifies QM and GR; it explains Gravity and all of the rest of the forces; it explains the cause of the BB; it explains BHs... a good few string theorists really just badly want it to be true. String Theorists (IMO) are following Einstein's footsteps, not just in their use of curvature to explain the "forces", but (more importantly) in their search for an elegance, or beauty, behind the physical phenomena.
Maybe that's the problem, it implies too much of a human vision on the universe (perfectness) that it is too good to be true.
Further, the development in brane cosmology open up a wide landscape of possibilties, for instance branes can gravitationally interact with each other. It opens up any possibility to explain anything.
I still think experiment is the only thing we can use to make sense of the universe. Our drive to know about the universe in all it's details has become larger then our experiments and equipment allow us to know, so in theory development we head miles forward the actual data that can proof us right or wrong.
We should restrict ourselves to those parts of knowledge, that can be experimentally verified, at least within a few decades.
Else, we are allowing science development to be given a way to the realms of a few "high priests" in which only a few people have access to the fabulous complex mathematical models, which stand on their own.
This ain't science any more, it is all highly speculative theoretical science.
We should recognize that based on our experimental data, we cannot have true knowledge about some things, for instance we can not distinguish between different types of cosmology yet.
Several decades of data are at least necessary to make any real progress in that field.
Well, I think that the candidates for the T.O.E. will all, eventually, be verified or rejected by experiment. However, I agree that there may be a problem with "wanting" so badly for a certain theory to be right. And yet, I really want it to be right.
BTW, we've wandered off-topic.
heusdens
Apr4-03, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, I think that the candidates for the T.O.E. will all, eventually, be verified or rejected by experiment. However, I agree that there may be a problem with "wanting" so badly for a certain theory to be right. And yet, I really want it to be right.
BTW, we've wandered off-topic.
I am affraid that a TOE is a fruitless excercise, and history will at some time drop it into the waste basket as an unfruitfull approach.
Besides that, any attempt I have seen on a TOE places limits on 'everything', it sticks to mathematical and physical concept of reality, and does not involve knowledge on other terrains (for example how the brain works, how society works, etc).
One theory that emerged however got my attention, and might indeed lead to something, which is the theory of 'eternal' or 'chaotic' inflation. At least the theory comes up with verifyable predictions, and has positive philospohical implications (it drops the need for a begin of time, for example).
heusdens,
I think it's time for a new thread, since this is getting off topic. But the question of eternal inflation models is interesting. The theory suffers from some problems, and is not very testible (even if basic inflation models may be). I'll start a new thread.
Let's try another topic, to run through my exercise. It's possible that my idea is incorrect, and the only way to find out is by testing it. Any ideas?
heusdens
Apr7-03, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Eh
heusdens,
I think it's time for a new thread, since this is getting off topic. But the question of eternal inflation models is interesting. The theory suffers from some problems, and is not very testible (even if basic inflation models may be). I'll start a new thread.
Well I suggest creating a thread about this model of Inflation.
The model is ascribed of successfully solving some fundamental problems of the BB model, makes testable predictions about the visible universe, and comes with a bonus (don't remember what), and has interesting philosophical implications.
May I remind everyone that you cannot 'verify' a scientific theory. you can at best show that it predicts results correctly--- if you are lucky results not predicted by any other theory.
As I understand it the String theory sinks or swims by the prediction of particle masses by means of the Higgs Field/Particle.
What happens if the CERN new accelerator doesn't find it? Simply say the Higgs particle has a higher mass?
Yes, I have read ' Warped Passages'.
Ernies
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.