David Brill
- 2
- 0
Does it make sense to think of our universe as a "container" of matter and energy? If so, is there some minimal content?
Last edited:
The discussion revolves around the conceptualization of the universe as a "container" of matter and energy, exploring whether the universe can be considered empty or if space-time necessarily requires content. The scope includes theoretical and conceptual considerations regarding the nature of the universe and its contents.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the universe can be considered empty or if it must contain matter and energy. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of the universe and the implications of defining it as a container.
Limitations include the ambiguity surrounding the term "container," the dependence on definitions of space and matter, and the unresolved status of certain theoretical models like the Milne Model.
David Brill said:Does it make sense to think of our universe as a "container" of matter and energy?
I always think of it as just a metric. Things have varying distances from each other and the measure of those distance is the metric of space. They change distances from each other and that is one way to formulate a metric of time. "Container" is just too loaded a word, as others have already pointed out.David Brill said:Does it make sense to think of our universe as a "container" of matter and energy? If so, is there some minimal content?