I agree it is actually and conceptually quantifiable and qualifiable as well, Pat, but as extracted from absolute fullness according to the detectible capacity of the present technology. It's like a 3-d pic that seems to get larger and larger, from the undetectible point to the point it can cover the whole screen. All the while the screen is covered by undetectible frequencies.
I can follow better now your explanation, RP, but why would there be, say, a galaxy in one spot and not another? What do you propose are the mechanics involved in the creation of what is observed as 3-d matter expanding as 4-d spacetime; if, as per Einstein's proposal, spatially-extended objects are concentrated intensities? What creates these concentrations of certain co-ordinate systems and not others? [My guess is random determinism based on probability distributions - particular persistence of particular existence.]
I agree it is actually and conceptually quantifiable and qualifiable as well, Pat, but as extracted from absolute fullness according to the detectible capacity of the present technology. It's like a 3-d pic that seems to get larger and larger, from the undetectible point to the point it can cover the whole screen. All the while the screen is covered by undetectible frequencies.
I can follow better now your explanation, RP, but why would there be, say, a galaxy in one spot and not another? What do you propose are the mechanics involved in the creation of what is observed as 3-d matter expanding as 4-d spacetime; if, as per Einstein's proposal, spatially-extended objects are concentrated intensities? What creates these concentrations of certain co-ordinate systems and not others? [My guess is random determinism based on probability distributions - particular persistence of particular existence.]
The 'creation' of corporeal matter is congruent with the issue of the 'creation', or cause of the expansion - imo, the proposed expansion is inherent to the existence of corporeal matter, and corporeal matter was not created; did not 'emerge', but rather, has always been. A Steady State w'out beginning or end. (A universal 'beginning' is no less confounding than a a scenario without a beginning...)
'Intervals' of galactic systems, and microcosmic entities are as we find them, behaving and interacting as they do. in general accordance with Classical Mechanics.
Regarding the issue of 'dispersal (distribution)', as I have said before, in a scenario of the uniform dispersal of the constituent building blocks, there prevails the same amount of energy, uniformly distributing itself over increased area, squared. Density remains relatively stable, where the in situ universe of large and small manifests as an apparently 'static', standing field.
Again, I petition your patience with my limited familiarity with this discussion.
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
I agree it is actually and conceptually quantifiable and qualifiable as well, Pat, but as extracted from absolute fullness according to the detectible capacity of the present technology. It's like a 3-d pic that seems to get larger and larger, from the undetectible point to the point it can cover the whole screen. All the while the screen is covered by undetectible frequencies
I agree Nobody, and since our universe is expanding I guess our quanta would also be ever increasing in size. What is your thought on this Nobody. I first thought it would be a constant size, then a relative size, but with your insight I guess it would be an increasing size.
It could only be an apparent insight because you'll notice that RP refers us to an apparent static field, whereas I refer us to an apparent expansion. It is the gist of our argument, but I can lean to his side based on how I interpret his explanations on gravity; there would be an exponential increase between the variable densities of the macro/micro systems while the densities can never be permitted to change, otherwise the observable stuff would disappear from under our noses.
What I don't agree with is the reference to a priori spacetime and uniformly distrubuted "matter" existing just because it is observed, so I focus on the relative process that essentially creates an infinite number of isotopes or atomic configurations with the condition that only a finite number of relational spacetime configurations are observable. There can be no literal expansion of a finite universe because existent space can't expand into a non-existent void; and in an infinite universe, space can't expand into itself in any direction because it would expand in every direction, the effects of which would exactly counter any possible expansion/motion.
So the only way I see us having our localized spacetimes is if we arbitrarily extract our timeframes from the absolute frame. We then go from zero intervals, to one-second intervals, to two-second intervals, etc., and space is created proportional to these intervals. The same would apply regardless of the length/size of the intervals also, whether they be reduced to planck units or infinitely less.
A few comments or questions regarding your post Nobody
Pat,
It could only be an apparent insight because you'll notice that RP refers us to an apparent static field, whereas I refer us to an apparent expansion. It is the gist of our argument, but I can lean to his side based on how I interpret his explanations on gravity; there would be an exponential increase between the variable densities of the macro/micro systems while the densities can never be permitted to change, otherwise the observable stuff would disappear from under our noses.It wouldn't disappear. It would just get farther and farther away.
What I don't agree with is the reference to a priori spacetime and uniformly distrubuted "matter" existing just because it is observed, Observations are one of the best forms of evidence that CBR does exist uniformally throughout the universeso I focus on the relative process that essentially creates an infinite number of isotopes or atomic configurations with the condition that only a finite number of relational spacetime configurations are observable. There can be no literal expansion of a finite universe because existent space can't expand into a non-existent void; Why non-existent. While there is no thing in the void, by definition, the void can still exist. Once space/time invades or occupies it however that portion would now become space/timeand in an infinite universe, space can't expand into itself in any direction because it would expand in every direction, the effects of which would exactly counter any possible expansion/motion.
So the only way I see us having our localized spacetimes is if we arbitrarily extract our timeframes from the absolute frame. We then go from zero intervals, to one-second intervals, to two-second intervals, etc., and space is created proportional to these intervals. The same would apply regardless of the length/size of the intervals also, whether they be reduced to planck units or infinitely less.[/quote]
If the densities remained the same, then the systems would get farther and farther away. Where exactly they would go is an altogether other matter, but if the material densities decreased proportionate to the exponential increase according to RP's explanation of matter expanding, the material would very quickly cease to remain prevalent. Which is why I don't think RP is suggesting the densities change, only "when compared" to other timeframes, which translates into an increase in density - the matter would have to increase to retain the proportionate value - whereby you do not notice a difference in your body getting larger and larger.
The microwaves being uniform is based on observations, but observations can be misleading which can lead to evidence being misinterpreted - in this case, to each their own I guess. There are other explanations that can explain the increase in wavelengths, as per my proposed continual creation process whereby redshifting due to virtual interactions results in the exact same vacuum density without any a priori considerations. It's not "there," but is made when light is slowed through gravitational time dilation.
For the void, I would say that the void - if absolute - would have to be devoid of volumetric space. Volumetric space would contain no things in it, but the presently accepted models are not suggestive of this state. It is space itself that expands into nonexistence, and you can verify this with any Cosmologist of the kind that has no time to consider questions about what is outside of it. It is a real problem that has been repeatedly ignored, primarily because it doesn't work - existence can't replace nonexistence and I think any honest scientist realizes this.
My problem is that I'm not well informed regarding astrophysics. My hobby is particle or quantum physics.
However I agree with you that existence can't replace non-existence but I would think the correllary would also be true that existent space cannot expand into non-existence. Even Hawkings knew he had problems when he suggested this regarding information. It's like rewriting the conservation laws.
Getting back to the neutrino and it's remarkable ability to go through massive bodies, I recall the Tao chapter 23 "...That without substance can enter where there is no room..."
This has me pondering as to what, if any, substance the neutrino is comprised of ?
I stumbled upon a nice article about the Higgs particle recently. Apparently, in 1993, the UK science minister issued a challenge to physicists to describe the Higgs boson and why we want to find it on one piece of paper. Here is a list of the winners: I especially liked this article, written by Tom Kibble, which seems to explain the problem, and what the Higgs is, in a rather simple way!
Hi Neutralino and Pat
This article, like the others submitted in response to the Minister's request, simply tell us why we need a mechanism to explain what mass is - and the current vogue is for a particle which is called the Higgs Boson after Peter Higgs who suggested it. None of the responses made any attempt to describe what the HB looks like or how it works. This explanation is simply saying that there's something out there which is responsible for mass and as we don't know what it is we'll conjure up a new particle. This approach relies heavily on the success of past predictions in the derrivation of the standard model and on an assumption that forces are the result of the transfer of particles (bosons).
Science is now placing a lot of faith in the LHC and its ability (by using higher energy collisions) to detect both the HB and the graviton. My feeling is that it will detect neither as they are not 'particles' in the accepted sense. There is an underlying mechanism, which is the source of matter (probably in the form of various combinations of string) and this will not therefore exhibit itself in our reality. If my interpretation is right then the HB cannot be detected by using particle collisions as it is not, in itself, ordinary matter.
A similar argument is put forward for the existence of the graviton. As gravity exists then there must be a mediator and current thinking proposes it to be another particle. Think what this would actually require - particles flowing back and forth between every massive particle in the universe and also moving through eachother. If we consider gravity to be an effect (as described in GR) then it does not require the graviton to be a particle. Rather there has to be a mechanism, which incorporates the HB and the graviton in such a way as to describe the effects of mass and gravity. If background dependency is accepted then they simply become part of the underlying 'aether' (or 'the fabric space/time' if you are allergic to the word). The HB is the source of matter and the graviton is the linking mechanism which holds the HBs together/apart in a grid structure. Mass is then simply the vibration of these links and its magnitude is dependent on the amplitude of the vibration.
If someone tells me how to get my diagrams (currently in M/S Word) onto this site then I can illustrate the above which all relates back to wave particle duality.
Could the grid cubes be reduced infinitely, perhaps to the size of a string or further? I ask because if the grid were to extend infinitely, any cube would then be comparatively the same size as any other.
Hi Nobody
Could it be that the variation in the size of the cubes (caused by the presence of mass) is the effect that we call gravity?
It would follow that the structure of the cubes must be very much bigger than the Planck length in order to allow for variation in the size of its components. What makes up the sides of the cubes - string?
Linear Mode
