What is the fabric of space made of

[nismaratwork]

What is spacetime made of? Math, because it's a model. If the real question here is "what is reality anyway" then the only real answer is, "who the @!&* knows?!".

 

[petm1]

How about change.

 

[GeorgCantor]

How about change.

Change of what and to what? Change of 'observations'?

 

[imiyakawa]

if as you say, the supposed "fabric" of spacetime is experimentally unobservable ...
it is [mathematical] relations between objects and events.

I'm butting in late, but has Newton's bucket experiment been discussed?

 

[petm1]

Change of what and to what? Change of 'observations'?

Everywhen and everywhere is constantly changing, from the outward motion I feel to the inward motion I see, it is the change that I sense as time. The little twist we use to view the results of big bang today changes the motion of the photons from a motion outside of matter back into a motion within matter, the observer. This dilating afterimage of our present from a point within the space of each observers eyes is the the change I see.

 

[brainstorm]

If the big bang was indeed the beginning of an expansion from a single point, then I think it could be said that spacetime is a product of expansionary energy. More specifically, if materialization is one expression of energy, and gravitation is a function of materialization insofar is mass is imparted; then kinetic energy of motion is what counteracts the gravitational attraction that tends toward reducing spacetime to non-existence.

I don't think that spacetime would exist if no energy would be materialized into matter with mass. I believe there has to be some tension between mass/gravitation and momentum for there to exist the relative separation between particles/objects (space) and between events (time). Likewise, if there was only a single source of light-emission with mass in the universe, I don't see why spacetime wouldn't simply curve back in on itself such that the light/energy would return to its gravitational source.

So, it would seem that for spacetime (fabric) to exist, there has to be 1) the construction of matter with mass/gravity and 2) the fragmentation/separation of that mass into multiple nodes with kinetic energy (momentum) sufficient to prevent them from collapsing into each other due to their gravitational attraction.

Once mass is established and energetic resistance of that mass to gravitational convergence, I believe spacetime (fabric) has been established. At that point, it is a question of further fragmentation and scaling between various sized pieces of matter, which can traverse the interacting gravitational fields of the more massive bodies. Without multiple massive bodies to form gravitational "poles," smaller particles would create their own spacetime by interacting energetically, but they would have no larger arena to break away from each other, except to the extent they would fragment into multiple large clouds with gravitational centers in orbit with each other.

 

[GeorgCantor]

More specifically, if materialization is one expression of energy, and gravitation is a function of materialization insofar is mass is imparted; then kinetic energy of motion is what counteracts the gravitational attraction that tends toward reducing spacetime to non-existence.

Kinetic energy of motion cannot exlain the ever increasing rate of expansion of the universe and Dark Energy is pretty much the new "Standard Model" these days(a sort of ultimate free lunch). It's a baffling example of nothing becoming a something. It's theorized that vacuum fluctuations should account for this force, but this will hardly be accepted as a rigorous statement as perpetual motion machines are tossed out without an examination.

 

[imiyakawa]

but this will hardly be accepted as a rigorous statement as perpetual motion machines are tossed out without an examination.

Virtual particles do not violate conservation, whilst perpetual motion machines do.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Virtual particles do not violate conservation, whilst perpetual motion machines do.

I was speaking of virtual particles causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, not merely going in and out of existence with observationally negligible effects.

 

[brainstorm]

Kinetic energy of motion cannot exlain the ever increasing rate of expansion of the universe and Dark Energy is pretty much the new "Standard Model" these days(a sort of ultimate free lunch). It's a baffling example of nothing becoming a something. It's theorized that vacuum fluctuations should account for this force, but this will hardly be accepted as a rigorous statement as perpetual motion machines are tossed out without an examination.

I was just illustrating a potential general relationship between radiation, matter, gravitation, and kinetic energy of material motion. If dark matter actually exists, I'm assuming it is some form of matter that exerts gravitational force without re-emitting energy at all somehow. Vacuum fluctuations would be caused by relative distribution of matter whose disequilibrium must be the product of gravity and patterns of kinetic energy transfers among particles within gravitational topography, right. So both explanations are still functions of interaction between gravitation/mass and repellant energy, no?

My big point was that there might be something inherent the the fact that matter is made of energy that causes energy to drive particles and objects away from each other when they collide. In other words, I suspect that the quality of matter to resist interpenetration in terms of particle rigidity is due to the ability of energy to repel other energy. Actually, I should google whether light can deflect other light because I am just thinking of electrostatic and magnetic repulsion.

Still, my hunch is that the attractive, convergent force of gravity is related to energy circulating in a closed-loop while repellant energy is related to open-loop energy trajectories. Thus, I think that black holes' ability to devour all energy is the end of one end of an energy-continuum where all linear expressions of energy bend in on themselves and at the other end of the continuum would be a star-system that was somehow able to completely convert all its matter into radiant energy.

I know this all sounds speculative and naively grand, but I'm not trying to push any new theories - just expressing a hunch about how gravitation and linear energy flows could be naturally counter-forces of each other as a result of the very mechanics of energy-looping.

 

[nismaratwork]

I was speaking of virtual particles causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, not merely going in and out of existence with observationally negligible effects.

The universe as a whole does not necessarily have to conserve energy; consider Dark Energy, and the redshifting of photons with spatial expansion. Interestingly, those "virtual particles" don't account for enough energy to balance the possible loss due to expansion. We're talking about a scale that is not open to this kind of analysis.

 

[brainstorm]

The universe as a whole does not necessarily have to conserve energy; consider Dark Energy, and the redshifting of photons with spatial expansion. Interestingly, those "virtual particles" don't account for enough energy to balance the possible loss due to expansion. We're talking about a scale that is not open to this kind of analysis.

You can analyze a model on whatever scale based on the assumption that all relevant parameters are known. If that assumption proves false, and it turns out that there are other influential parameters that you didn't take into account in your model, the model becomes that much less useful, but you can still attempt modeling and extrapolation from the model - it's not impossible.

What I would like to know is do you recognize space as being limited to gravitational topography, in the sense of Einsteinian curved spacetime, or do you presume space to exist independently of matter and its gravity? My assumption is that mass/gravity determines the curvature of space, and therefore it is never possible for EM radiation to escape matter indefinitely. Do you agree or do you think light can proceed infinitely away from any and all matter?

If matter is being converted into energy by stars everywhere, then presumably the mass of the universe is decreasing, unless there is some other process by which energy is getting converted into matter. I have personal hunches about how this could be happening, which involves black holes, but I won't go into those now. The point is that various scenarios for the distant future of the universe can be projected from assumptions in the model of how energy and matter behave relative to each other.

If, for example, all matter got transformed into EM radiation, would the radiation continue infinitely in divergent directions, or would it attract itself into convergent patterns? I think it would do the latter if space itself can indeed only exist as a function of gravitation, for in that case radiation itself would probably exert sufficient attractive force to generate curvature in its trajectory, which would probably eventually culminate in contraction to the point of forming new matter.

When you give the example of red-shift, are you implying that light loses energy by red-shifting? Why wouldn't you think that the waves are growing in amplitude in proportion to their frequency decrease? Couldn't a photon lose frequency simply be expanding, and therefore retain the same energy?

 

[nismaratwork]

You can analyze a model on whatever scale based on the assumption that all relevant parameters are known. If that assumption proves false, and it turns out that there are other influential parameters that you didn't take into account in your model, the model becomes that much less useful, but you can still attempt modeling and extrapolation from the model - it's not impossible.

What I would like to know is do you recognize space as being limited to gravitational topography, in the sense of Einsteinian curved spacetime, or do you presume space to exist independently of matter and its gravity? My assumption is that mass/gravity determines the curvature of space, and therefore it is never possible for EM radiation to escape matter indefinitely. Do you agree or do you think light can proceed infinitely away from any and all matter?

If matter is being converted into energy by stars everywhere, then presumably the mass of the universe is decreasing, unless there is some other process by which energy is getting converted into matter. I have personal hunches about how this could be happening, which involves black holes, but I won't go into those now. The point is that various scenarios for the distant future of the universe can be projected from assumptions in the model of how energy and matter behave relative to each other.

If, for example, all matter got transformed into EM radiation, would the radiation continue infinitely in divergent directions, or would it attract itself into convergent patterns? I think it would do the latter if space itself can indeed only exist as a function of gravitation, for in that case radiation itself would probably exert sufficient attractive force to generate curvature in its trajectory, which would probably eventually culminate in contraction to the point of forming new matter.

When you give the example of red-shift, are you implying that light loses energy by red-shifting? Why wouldn't you think that the waves are growing in amplitude in proportion to their frequency decrease? Couldn't a photon lose frequency simply be expanding, and therefore retain the same energy?

Here's a question for an answer: which is more energetic? A photon of the UV wavelength, or that of the Radio wavelength?

 

[brainstorm]

Here's a question for an answer: which is more energetic? A photon of the UV wavelength, or that of the Radio wavelength?

Wiki says radio waves are the least energetic and the lowest frequency. I do not understand what "photon" refers to exactly, i.e. whether it is a single EM wave or something else. The reason I thought it was decided that radiation behaved as particles is because energy is always delivered in fixed increments by radiation, which appear as packets. I think Planck discovered this, but I'm not 100%.

 

[nismaratwork]

Wiki says radio waves are the least energetic and the lowest frequency. I do not understand what "photon" refers to exactly, i.e. whether it is a single EM wave or something else. The reason I thought it was decided that radiation behaved as particles is because energy is always delivered in fixed increments by radiation, which appear as packets. I think Planck discovered this, but I'm not 100%.

My point is that light (in whatever form you choose to envision it) redshifts with universal expansion, which is true for all EM radiation, and in a sense, matter.

 

[brainstorm]

My point is that light (in whatever form you choose to envision it) redshifts with universal expansion, which is true for all EM radiation, and in a sense, matter.

How so with matter? And what does this suggest about the conservation of energy and matter?

 

[nismaratwork]

How so with matter? And what does this suggest about the conservation of energy and matter?

Here is an explanation, and in my view and a decent refutation of what I'm talking about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Of course, the balloon analogy has its limitations, and there is no explanation as to how or why this effect does not take place. This is why I said "We're talking about a scale that is not open to this kind of analysis."

 

[brainstorm]

Here is an explanation, and in my view and a decent refutation of what I'm talking about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Of course, the balloon analogy has its limitations, and there is no explanation as to how or why this effect does not take place. This is why I said "We're talking about a scale that is not open to this kind of analysis."

Nice link. Thanks. But you completely ignored the questions in my post: 1) What did you mean when you said that matter, in a sense, redshifts with universal expansion; and
2) What is implied about the disappearance or appearance of matter/energy at any scale?

 

[nismaratwork]

Nice link. Thanks. But you completely ignored the questions in my post: 1) What did you mean when you said that matter, in a sense, redshifts with universal expansion; and
2) What is implied about the disappearance or appearance of matter/energy at any scale?

Saying that matter redshifts was incorrect on my part, and misleading. Matter eventually will reduce to radiation, which will redshift. The argument that light may redshift is a very old one, so I'm sorry that I assumed your familiarity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

I'm not arguing that this is correct, but it is puzzling. On one had the universe seems to be expanding, radiation redshifts, but the effects of this loss are not observed. Dark Energy or vacuum expectation energy doesn't match or make up for the apparent loss. although neutrino pair creation has been put forth. Many take the view that conservation of energy doesn't apply to the universe as a whole, and until there is a way to confirm its symmetries (or not) it will probably remain a mystery.

 

[brainstorm]

Ok, you just mean that matter can undergo redshift once it is converted into radiation.

I'm not arguing that this is correct, but it is puzzling. On one had the universe seems to be expanding, radiation redshifts, but the effects of this loss are not observed.

In the link you posted, it said that redshift doesn't reduce the energy of radiation, it just dilates the waves such that it takes more time for the same amount of energy to reach a destination point. So, unless I am understanding something wrong, no energy is lost - it's just delivered at a slower rate over a longer period of time.

Dark Energy or vacuum expectation energy doesn't match or make up for the apparent loss. although neutrino pair creation has been put forth.

How exactly is the loss apparent?

Many take the view that conservation of energy doesn't apply to the universe as a whole, and until there is a way to confirm its symmetries (or not) it will probably remain a mystery.

Regardless of what "many" or few take as a view, it's ultimately the reasons behind what they think that matters, not their conclusive opinions. Everything theoretical ultimately remains a mystery. The issue is what can be reasoned despite fundamental unanswerability, and how.

One thing I don't understand is whether you agree that any matter/energy lost or gained at the level of "the universe" has to be lost or gained in some sub-set of it. So unless there is a specific mechanism for matter/energy to be lost or gained, conservation law is logical. The question I would be asking is what happens to radio-waves when they red-shift? Is their a lower limit to radiation frequency or does everything exist amid photons so old that their frequency has long since surpassed measurability?

This raises another question, which is why gamma rays are the upper-limit of EM frequency? I wonder if it is possible that yet higher frequencies begin behaving as material particles with the ability to slow down, for some reason. I only wonder this because gamma rays are supposedly the size of an atomic nucleus and the amount of energy expressed in them is growing exponentially; and because I wonder where the bridge between energy and matter (in that direction) takes place.

 

[Dmitry67]

So unless there is a specific mechanism for matter/energy to be lost or gained, conservation law is logical.

No

I can give an example: you stand in front of the building (1000'000kg). It has 0 kinetic energy. Now you run towards it at 10m/sec. In your frame of reference (where you are at rest), kinetic energy of the building is now huge. Where did this energy come from? :)

Of course, you would say: this is not fair! When you started to run, you changed your frame, so you just can't compare energy of the building in 2 different frames!

Now the Universe. There is no frame which can cover the whole Universe. In Cosmology there is a pseudo-frame ('all universe at time t') but it is not a valid physical frame because if you draw this frame, you would see that it is not a flat surface in spacetime but it is curved!

 

[nismaratwork]

No

I can give an example: you stand in front of the building (1000'000kg). It has 0 kinetic energy. Now you run towards it at 10m/sec. In your frame of reference (where you are at rest), kinetic energy of the building is now huge. Where did this energy come from? :)

Of course, you would say: this is not fair! When you started to run, you changed your frame, so you just can't compare energy of the building in 2 different frames!

Now the Universe. There is no frame which can cover the whole Universe. In Cosmology there is a pseudo-frame ('all universe at time t') but it is not a valid physical frame because if you draw this frame, you would see that it is not a flat surface in spacetime but it is curved!

A curve which changes from t₁ to t₂ , whence Noether's Theorem becomes an issue.

 

[brainstorm]

No

I can give an example: you stand in front of the building (1000'000kg). It has 0 kinetic energy. Now you run towards it at 10m/sec. In your frame of reference (where you are at rest), kinetic energy of the building is now huge. Where did this energy come from? :)

Of course, you would say: this is not fair! When you started to run, you changed your frame, so you just can't compare energy of the building in 2 different frames!

Now the Universe. There is no frame which can cover the whole Universe. In Cosmology there is a pseudo-frame ('all universe at time t') but it is not a valid physical frame because if you draw this frame, you would see that it is not a flat surface in spacetime but it is curved!

Framing is an epistemological issue. In your process of running toward the building, you convert a certain amount of energy into momentum, which is conserved during your collision with the building. No energy is lost or gained during that process. The only reason you are able to suggest it is possible is by confounding your analysis by using framing to change the descriptions of what is going on. Running toward the building doesn't increase the KE of the building the same as would pushing the building over. And besides, the KE only matters once it gets expressed through transference to something else. Prior to collision, the KE expressed is just a build up of dynamic potential to transfer energy to another carrier, isn't it?

If no energy is created or destroyed at the micro-level of empirically observable matter-energy, how could it occur at a more complex level or larger scale?

 

[nismaratwork]

Framing is an epistemological issue. In your process of running toward the building, you convert a certain amount of energy into momentum, which is conserved during your collision with the building. No energy is lost or gained during that process. The only reason you are able to suggest it is possible is by confounding your analysis by using framing to change the descriptions of what is going on. Running toward the building doesn't increase the KE of the building the same as would pushing the building over. And besides, the KE only matters once it gets expressed through transference to something else. Prior to collision, the KE expressed is just a build up of dynamic potential to transfer energy to another carrier, isn't it?

If no energy is created or destroyed at the micro-level of empirically observable matter-energy, how could it occur at a more complex level or larger scale?

It's a principle that just doesn't apply; energy cannot be created, yet here we are. At the scale of the universe as a whole, it's not that the notion is invalid, it just does not apply to it.

 

[brainstorm]

It's a principle that just doesn't apply; energy cannot be created, yet here we are. At the scale of the universe as a whole, it's not that the notion is invalid, it just does not apply to it.

Implicit deus ex machina is not an interesting scientific proposition. I am interested in what process(es) could convert energy into matter and how/when this may occur naturally. I suspect either something to do with black hole gravity, ultra high energy radiation, or both. I would also like to establish whether radiation can ever permanently escape gravitational fields. If it can't, then it would seem that energy inevitably gets converted into matter, which inevitably gets coagulated into a body with sufficient gravitation to result in nuclear fusion, converting the matter back into energy. This would, I think, establish the universe as a perpetual system of matter-energy conversions, which could also mean that it has no beginning or end. The big bang is suggested to be an absolute beginning, but technically I don't think BBT addresses what happened prior to the amalgamation of the energy/matter that began expanding in the first place. It may have been due to the convergence of a prior universe of dynamic matter-energy into a singularity with the propensity to expand. I think the key to theorizing this would involve finding some mechanism whereby black holes can destabilize or otherwise generate radiation. The only theory of this I know is that of Hawking radiation, but could that process be significant enough to result in big-bang levels of energy-expansion?

 

[nismaratwork]

Implicit deus ex machina is not an interesting scientific proposition. I am interested in what process(es) could convert energy into matter and how/when this may occur naturally. I suspect either something to do with black hole gravity, ultra high energy radiation, or both. I would also like to establish whether radiation can ever permanently escape gravitational fields. If it can't, then it would seem that energy inevitably gets converted into matter, which inevitably gets coagulated into a body with sufficient gravitation to result in nuclear fusion, converting the matter back into energy. This would, I think, establish the universe as a perpetual system of matter-energy conversions, which could also mean that it has no beginning or end. The big bang is suggested to be an absolute beginning, but technically I don't think BBT addresses what happened prior to the amalgamation of the energy/matter that began expanding in the first place. It may have been due to the convergence of a prior universe of dynamic matter-energy into a singularity with the propensity to expand. I think the key to theorizing this would involve finding some mechanism whereby black holes can destabilize or otherwise generate radiation. The only theory of this I know is that of Hawking radiation, but could that process be significant enough to result in big-bang levels of energy-expansion?

You are, in a different area, making my point: there is no theory to cover the period "before" there was a "before (before BB), and conservation of energy doesn't apply to the universe as a whole, only its subsystems. You can show how energy is conserved in a given system, but not for the entire universe, which logically should be losing energy, but empirically seems not to be. How matter is created from energy is spelled out in E=Mc², but the conditions for that are no longer present (in any part of the universe that I know of).

 

[brainstorm]

You are, in a different area, making my point: there is no theory to cover the period "before" there was a "before (before BB), and conservation of energy doesn't apply to the universe as a whole, only its subsystems. You can show how energy is conserved in a given system, but not for the entire universe, which logically should be losing energy, but empirically seems not to be. How matter is created from energy is spelled out in E=Mc², but the conditions for that are no longer present (in any part of the universe that I know of).

What empirical observation supports the idea that the entire universe is losing energy? The only thing I can imagine you mean is that red-shift eventually results in total dissipation of EM wave energy, but I asked you in another post why EM waves can't continue expanding beyond the radio spectrum?

Also, you casually say that no conditions for converting energy into matter still exist anywhere in the universe, but what do you think about black holes? When gravitation exceeds the ability of EM radiation to move translocally, it seems logical to me that it would have to become localized, probably through some form of loop of radiant energy bent in on itself.

Also, what about the possibility of higher frequency EM emissions than gamma rays? Could it be that some level of fusion reactions generate such ultra-high frequency emissions and that these contain so much energy in so small a volume of spacetime that they bend-in on themselves due to their own attractive force? In this sense, some stars may emit particles in addition to other frequencies of EM radiation.

Still, if anything is to account for conversion of sub-gamma wavelengths, I think it would have to be black holes. And, likewise, you didn't respond to the question of whether you think radiation can escape gravitation indefinitely or whether it eventually has to traverse gravity-field topography until it reaches a black hole.

edit: I just realized after posting that if the nascent particles of matter generated by powerful stars have the capacity to absorb other forms of radiant energy, they could act as germinal particles, like snow balls collecting free energy to grow into electrons. In this sense, a powerful star could emit such particles into space where their path would intersect with other radiation traveling in a non-parallel direction, and as such they would end up incorporating that energy into their loop-structure. This almost sounds like it could be a form of "dark matter."

Could this be tested by comparing the mass and composition of large stars to the total energy of their emissions? If the energy of the star's radiation was less than expected, would that suggest it was generating something other than radiation, like elementary particles or "dark matter?"

 

[apeiron]

You can show how energy is conserved in a given system, but not for the entire universe, which logically should be losing energy, but empirically seems not to be.

Perhaps it is indeed better to start with the empirlcal here? We observe the universe to be largely flat, homogenous, isotropic, and so can impute a conservation principle at work.

Then what seems to be in exact balance is cooling and expansion. So there is a fundamental equilibrium between energy and spacetime. The universe is a dissipative structure which is its own heat sink. Radiation spreads and cool. An initial thick hot point runs down a gradient of dissipation to become a thin cold void.

Of course, dark energy is the new complication - both necessary because there was not enough energy/matter/gravity to balance the observed expansion rate, and a complication as it seems to throw in an extra little persistent acceleration, implying an open thermodynamic story.

So on the whole, the universe looks like a closed story - a gradient simply being run down from a hot point to a cold void, a phase transition we are seeing from the inside. But there is still a small nagging openness. I think this will be due in the end to a marginal QM uncertainty as various people have speculated.

 

[brainstorm]

Perhaps it is indeed better to start with the empirlcal here? We observe the universe to be largely flat, homogenous, isotropic, and so can impute a conservation principle at work.

I don't think you can call the universe an empirically observable entity. The universe is a theoretical superset of everything that exists. As such it is an extrapolation of what is imagined to exist in the same way as the set of all observable matter-energy phenomena, which is theoretically a subset of the universe in its imagined entirety. In short, empirically observable occurrences can only be a subset of the total set of everything theorized to exist as part of "the universe," so the universe can't be empirically circumscribable.

This is poorly written so here's an example: Presumably there are stars/galaxies in existence beyond the Hubble horizon where stars have red-shifted beyond visibility. Still, they are presumed to exist as part of the universe despite having become empirically unobservable. Therefore, only the subset of empirically observable phenomena are empirically observable, not the the universe as a whole, which includes the unobservable stars/galaxies too.

Then what seems to be in exact balance is cooling and expansion. So there is a fundamental equilibrium between energy and spacetime. The universe is a dissipative structure which is its own heat sink. Radiation spreads and cool. An initial thick hot point runs down a gradient of dissipation to become a thin cold void.

So you think energy is dissipating into nothingness? What makes you think it is not simply transferring or transforming into new expressions? This is why I asked you if you think radiation can proceed indefinitely away from all gravity fields? I don't think it can/does.

 

[nismaratwork]

Perhaps it is indeed better to start with the empirlcal here? We observe the universe to be largely flat, homogenous, isotropic, and so can impute a conservation principle at work.

Then what seems to be in exact balance is cooling and expansion. So there is a fundamental equilibrium between energy and spacetime. The universe is a dissipative structure which is its own heat sink. Radiation spreads and cool. An initial thick hot point runs down a gradient of dissipation to become a thin cold void.

Of course, dark energy is the new complication - both necessary because there was not enough energy/matter/gravity to balance the observed expansion rate, and a complication as it seems to throw in an extra little persistent acceleration, implying an open thermodynamic story.

So on the whole, the universe looks like a closed story - a gradient simply being run down from a hot point to a cold void, a phase transition we are seeing from the inside. But there is still a small nagging openness. I think this will be due in the end to a marginal QM uncertainty as various people have speculated.

I disagree, first, because I can't imagine a way of defining the symmetries needed to invoke Noether's Theorem for the universe as an entity, and because Brainstorm is right; how is it empirically observable as a whole? We see only a small slice of it, and we know that; for the rest... ? How do you formulate a conservation law for something that is ill defined in the sense needed for such a thing?

 

[brainstorm]

I disagree, first, because I can't imagine a way of defining the symmetries needed to invoke Noether's Theorem for the universe as an entity, and because Brainstorm is right; how is it empirically observable as a whole? We see only a small slice of it, and we know that; for the rest... ? How do you formulate a conservation law for something that is ill defined in the sense needed for such a thing?

You can just postulate that the unobservable parts of the universe behave similarly to the observable parts and tentatively assume that if matter-energy is being conserved in all observable/fathomable mechanisms present that it would be conserved in the unobservable parts too. You just have to acknowledge that your assumption is tentative and state your assumptions so that they can be subject to critique.

The big question that would tip the scale for me in either direction is whether energy can red-shift beyond radio-waves or if it somehow just disappears at lower frequencies. On the other hand, if the combined rate of expansion between two galaxies exceeds the speed of light, then light is ultimately surpassed by the expansion of space. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that its dilation converges with the dilation of space itself. In that case, is that energy really lost or has it simply merged with the energy of universal expansion, adding to the rate of expansion the way a drop of water in a pond causes ripples that eventually flatten out and raise the overall water-level of the pond?

 

[apeiron]

This is poorly written so here's an example: Presumably there are stars/galaxies in existence beyond the Hubble horizon where stars have red-shifted beyond visibility. Still, they are presumed to exist as part of the universe despite having become empirically unobservable. Therefore, only the subset of empirically observable phenomena are empirically observable, not the the universe as a whole, which includes the unobservable stars/galaxies too.

I don't see the problem here. We start with what we observe (an equilbrium as far as we can see) and then extrapolate over the event horizon. We can't know for sure what lies over the horizon. but our extrapolations can still be logical.

So yes, there would be a supraluminal expanse of universe beyond our current event horizon - based on logical extrapolation. And we can also make guesses about what came before the big bang on the same basis.

So you think energy is dissipating into nothingness? What makes you think it is not simply transferring or transforming into new expressions? This is why I asked you if you think radiation can proceed indefinitely away from all gravity fields? I don't think it can/does.

Well we know that if the universe contained just radiation, then there would not be sufficient gravity to create the flat balance we observe. Even throwing in dark matter, only got things up to around 30%. So dark energy, or something like, was needed to balance the books, providing the missing 70%. So I think that is a basic misconception you have here.

A good introduction to this in general is...
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverChap_6.pdf

See especially the diagram on p71 to answer your query about the minimum possible wavelength of photons.

The general view I am expressing is that energy is being turned into spacetime in essence. That is the phase transition taking place. This is hard to see if you are imagining energy as stuff (substance) and space as a stage or framework (form), but if you frame both as geometry (positive or open vs negative or closed curvature), then it becomes easier to appreciate how the two might be related.

 

[apeiron]

I disagree, first, because I can't imagine a way of defining the symmetries needed to invoke Noether's Theorem for the universe as an entity, and because Brainstorm is right; how is it empirically observable as a whole? We see only a small slice of it, and we know that; for the rest... ? How do you formulate a conservation law for something that is ill defined in the sense needed for such a thing?

Hah, if we observe the universe (as far as the eye can see) to be flat, homogenous, isotropic, then it has scale symmetry - no scale of observation is preferred. So what conservation principle does that imply here, given Noether's Theorem?

I think that does tell us that expansion is following a conservation principle. Cooling is possible because the heat is creating its own heat sink.

But you would be right. Conventional ways of imagining cooling~expansion don't really add up. Something is missing.

For me, it is the lack of a proper model of development - a notion of vagueness. Conventional notions of development are monadic - things progress in only one direction, and so that is not a symmetry. But vagueness is the basis of a dyadic philosophy where things develop because you have things going in two complementary directions - towards the local and the global. You have in fact a foundational asymmetry (that arises out of a vagueness, the foundational symmetry).

And this is why it then seems so natural to relate energy and spacetime so directly. They are two faces of the same coin. They may look very different of course (they are asymmetric and complementary), but that difference is precisely what develops.

During the big bang, the difference between the two was vague - so symmetric that you could not tell them apart. The kind of state described as a quantum foam in loop quantum gravity where the energy fluctuations are as large as the metric. At the heat death, all the local fluctuations will have been smoothed away as far as possible. In effect, the roiling energy will have become stretched out to make a thin cold fabric of infinitely large spacetime.

All that energy of the big bang would have indeed gone somewhere - into creating the void. Again, this picture is too simple because dark energy is now another piece of the puzzle. But as the baseline story of a closed system (and dissipative structure theory is about the self-organisation of closed systems) it still makes sense to me.

 

[brainstorm]

I don't see the problem here. We start with what we observe (an equilbrium as far as we can see) and then extrapolate over the event horizon. We can't know for sure what lies over the horizon. but our extrapolations can still be logical.

So yes, there would be a supraluminal expanse of universe beyond our current event horizon - based on logical extrapolation. And we can also make guesses about what came before the big bang on the same basis.

This is what I was saying. It IS possible to THEORIZE the behavior of the universe as a whole through tentative extrapolations from observables. However, the other poster was suggesting that empirical observation of the universe as a whole could serve as a starting point for theorizing. I don't see how this is possible if the universe only exists at the theoretical level of extrapolation and is not empirically circumscribable.

Well we know that if the universe contained just radiation, then there would not be sufficient gravity to create the flat balance we observe. Even throwing in dark matter, only got things up to around 30%. So dark energy, or something like, was needed to balance the books, providing the missing 70%. So I think that is a basic misconception you have here.

I don't understand what is meant by "observed flat balance." Do you know of a link that explains the logic of what is observed and what is extrapolated from that and how? The only thing I've read has to do with galaxies rotating at an apparent speed faster than C, but I forget how this is logically brought to bear on estimations of their mass/gravitation.

A good introduction to this in general is...
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverChap_6.pdf

See especially the diagram on p71 to answer your query about the minimum possible wavelength of photons.

I looked at the picture. I did not see how it related to the minimum possible wavelength of photons. Maybe my brain hit its minimum wavelength:)

The general view I am expressing is that energy is being turned into spacetime in essence. That is the phase transition taking place. This is hard to see if you are imagining energy as stuff (substance) and space as a stage or framework (form), but if you frame both as geometry (positive or open vs negative or closed curvature), then it becomes easier to appreciate how the two might be related.

This sounds similar to the lines along which I have been thinking. Would you care to elaborate - if necessary in PM if you are concerned about being harassed about independent thought?

 

[apeiron]

I'm sure my comments above are pretty opaque, so let me try to give a little more perspective.

The conventional way of looking at things is Newtonian - the universe as a static eternal back drop. And this stage has atomistic contents - a bunch of particles.

Modern cosmology challenges this basic picture in so many ways. And a new core mental picture could be emerging - at least you can see the gist of things in the writings of Davies and Lineweaver. I've read a ton of different people, but I keep coming back to their current work as lighting the path ahead.

See
http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/The%20physics%20of%20downward%20causation.pdf
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisDaviesLineweaver.pdf
and really many of the papers on
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/publications.html

In brief, they are taking a self-organising system view. They are taking the observed facts about the universe, such as its scale flatness, its expansion, its light cone coherence, and making them basic rather than add-ons.

The Newtonian universe is static, so expansion and a direction of change have to be added as secondary features. Likewise it is empty, so contents like energy have to be added.

This is all very primitive modelling, and so we want to start with a model that is inherently dynamic, inherently full of potential (potential energy and potential spacetime), etc.

Now the beautiful idea at the heart of the Davies/Lineweaver work (it is not their idea as such, many are thinking along the same general lines, they just express it most clearly IMHO) is that the description of the universe can be boiled down to blackbody photons radiated by event horizons. A de sitter space view.

It is a spherical co-ordinates type view (and I remember nismaratwork may have had an enthusiasm for that). Instead of spacetime as a static frame, it is defined in terms of lightcones - comoving volumes bounded by event horizons. So an inherently dynamic view. And event horizons have now been brought into the fold of thermodynamic/entropic modelling. So the boundaries of spacetime are inherently in dynamic equilibrium with the contents. Energy is being related to spacetime in a direct fashion. Closure, in energy conservation terms, is being defined (in a way it was not in an open, unbounded, Newtonian universe).

The event horizon approach also unites the description of the local and the global. The global scale is set by lightcones and comoving volumes. The local by the thermodynamics of black holes.

We know the universe is expanding, which is puzzling because it seems like an action in a single direction, a violation of conservation. Some force must be continually pushing it larger.

And then we look at the contents of the universe, such as photons, and say something must be stretching them - like the expansion of space.

But an inherently dynamic view of the universe puts these kinds of things back together as a single action of separation - symmetry breaking. Energy spreads out to expand spacetime, and the growth of spacetime cools energy (spreads it about). Two faces of the same coin.

Again, you then need an ontology of development that makes this an actual change in state, rather than an apparent tautology, a simple circularity. It certainly sounds circular to say that photons are spreading the spacetime they are in, and spacetime is spreading the photons it contains. Which is why a notion like vagueness becomes essential because you do get back actual change - a change from a vague potential to a crisply dichotomised outcome.

But regardless, current cosmology - taking Davies and Lineweaver as examples - is learning to take a dynamic and self-organising approach to imagining the universe. It is quite unlike the Newtonian thinking that is still the standard issue mental model.