It's my belief that we have space, and we have the void.
Space is that bubble that floats on the nothingness we call the void.
Space is that which encloses and includes its surface; it is everything. CBR, protons, photons, etc.
You have outer and inner space. Inner space is that space inside of things, such as the space inside of the protons and atoms. Outer space is that space which is outside of things, which of course could be inner space to some other larger thing. That which is outside of space is nothing, or the Void.
Space, as well as time and motion was created at the big bang, from that dimensionless point ( The Void ).
The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe.
If black holes do not radiate, then where does all the information they gulped down go to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max™
I missed your question about space there.
I believe if you took matter out of a body of space, you would have less space, since I'm fairly certain matter is just knots or folds in space itself.
I don't agree with the virtual particle model, it's just attempting to describe the energy contained in space without saying it is actually "the energy of space".
I just call it gravitons, it works well enough, and explains the vacuum expectation value nicely. Though it does put me at odds with Hawking, and by definition I disagree about black holes radiating, but heck... I think I can take him.
I'm going to kill the spatial wave function descriptions of quantum mechanics some day, they're the source of the pernicious infinities which require renormalization to correct, to me it screams "THIS IS WRONG", yet no one does anything about it because they don't want to consider loosening causality, and different ways to think about time.
-Gravity- is a phenomenon as I view it too, it is literally a representation of the amount of space folded within a body of mass.
We do not think alike in this respect, Max, or I do not understand your language. For me space is a something that isn't something material. The room is not its furniture, though the furniture can give ambiance to the room. The changing ambiance belongs not to the room, but to the furniture. The furniture takes up space and can get changed, and contains itself space at the molecular level, but it isn't the same as space. The room is the room with or without the furniture (and yes, the walls, doors and windows can create an ambiance to the space, too).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
It's my belief that we have space, and we have the void.
I have the same (linguistic) problem with you, Pat. Just like the word fundamental cannot be used as referring to something with having a more and something with a less fundamental part, nothing (space, void) cannot be divvied up in categories and it having any additional meaning. If you want to wrap space inside a void, that sounds like a mystery wrapped in an enigma pronounced in a riddle to me. Naturally, if you claim space to be inclusive of matter then your words make sense, but you are then not separating matter from space. You are then stating that marriage is defined as a husband and Carol, while it should be husband and wife, or Charley and Carol (or in some nations and states also possible: Charley and Carl); i.e. it is matter and non-matter, and it is empty space and taken-up space.
To communicate properly, we have to have the same meanings for words, we need to understand how each words functions within its own framework (numbers and letters are different framework, for instance) and we need to understand where some words may be different words but describing the same thing. I guess what I am saying, Pat, is that we do not have the same meanings attached to our words (but I will admit immediately that language is a difficult tool to use, especially for the largest of frameworks).
About the Black Holes, I know you know what I think of them (ash holes!). Matter does not disappear, it is deplaced from our ordinary view like a magician lets a rabbit disappear.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
There is something qualitatively different about space from not-space.
The vacuum expectation value, cosmological constant, dark energy... these all occur to me as artifacts of the actual energy of space.
Think about a beam of light, now reduce the energy to the minimum value, what do you get?
You can't reduce it to zero, but it stops seeming meaningful as light...
You get space! Gravitons as I call 'em.
As for black holes, where does the information go?
It cheats entropy by passing it on to a daughter universe (what Dave called a magical conjecture), which nicely explains the rather arbitrary presence of bodies of extremely low entropy that we call big bangs.
Run the current expansion of this universe to it's maximum point, eventually space will lose meaning, time will no longer matter, the universe will fall apart.
The black holes within her will no longer have event horizons, and then as they say.
Let there be light.
__________________ Simply Relativity: The Signature of the Gardener.
We do not have the same language when talking about space. And yes, I have no problems with zero light, or the lack of light. No biggie. Some of your words (not-space) are hard for me to imagine, because space is such a (phenomenon of) nothing for me already. The not-space would then have to be everything else. Yet everything else needs a framework, and that is space. So, I cannot explain anything unless I have space, and in that framework I do not have a not-space in opposition to space. In my dictionary there is no logic to it. But I understand that you use space as something else (space as populated vs. not-space as not-populated?).
There is also no running the current expansion of the universe to its maximum point in my dictionary, because the calculations are not right. With Empty Nest, the material universe can be a lot younger than 13 billion years, because materialization did not start out in the middle, but on the edges of a gigantic area (similar in idea how the sun is not shining from its center, but from the surface outwardly). As such, the process started 13 billion years ago (give or take, but a little less than what is now calculated), in which -on top of that- materialization did not occur till much later. As you know, the calculations are based on the materialized reality, so the outcome about expansion is different with or without Empty Nest. I would say there is no expansion, except for the usual lever-effect that, from our position, our side and the opposite side move apart twice as fast as we move away from the center. With Empty Nest there is no extraordinary expansion, but when calculating that all matter came from Point X then it will appear as if expansion is increasing.
It is fine to disagree, though it makes it harder (but not impossible) to communicate ideas when we don't understand words the same way.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Since you must admit that there is nothing outside the universe, it can have no limit and is accordingly without end or measure. It makes no odds in which part of it you may take your stand; whatever spot anyone may occupy, the universe stretches away from him just the same in all directions without limit. –Lucretius, c. 60 B.C.E.
Hi Fredrick;
That which is nothing outside the universe is the VOID. Which is nothing.
The universe is everything, the space/time continuum, the ether, all the other stuff, which is mostly space. SPACE IS THE UNIVERSE.
I don't know how else to explain it. The atom and the proton are for the most part space. The thing which gives these particles structure is the movement and combination of that one dimensional Planck length entity called the string.
Thats it Fredrick. Nothing = The Void. Everything = The Universe = The Space where these strings do their cosmic dance.
Linear Mode
