An Exercise in nothing semantics.

[Mentat]

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.

 

[(Q)]

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]

what if space was something,and particles don't 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!

 

[Eh]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
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"?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by kyleb
your on. now prove it.

I appreciate your support, kyleb, but concur that there are a great deal of people, who are more knowledgeable then I am.

 

[(Q)]

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. Let's 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.

 

[Eh]

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.

 

[(Q)]

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)

 

[Ben-CS]

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.

 

[Eh]

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.

 

[(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.

 

[Mentat]

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?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
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. Let's 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.

 

[(Q)]

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.

 

[Eh]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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 brief 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 spatial 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 brief 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 spatial extent, which can be measured, must exist, must be "something" - isn't this the logical conclusion?

 

[(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.

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 brief 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 spatial 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]

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!

 

[Mentat]

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 brief 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 spatial 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 spatial extent of the void (of course, the fact that it has spatial extent means that it's something, and would thus be within the universe; a point which seems to be entirely beyond you).

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[CJames]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Mentat]

Well, heusdens, string theory (my favorite candidate for the T.O.E.) does state that the perceived 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?

 

[Mentat]

(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]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, heusdens, string theory (my favorite candidate for the T.O.E.) does state that the perceived 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).

 

[Mentat]

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]

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?