Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Space

  1. #1 Space 
    Forum Freshman blood_pardon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    How do you think space came into existance?


    Do you know the name of your grandfather? What about your great grandfather? Great great grandfather? In four generations no one will remember you either.
    Paul Washer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Questions such as this lie at the outer boundary of modern science and are driving the search for a theory of quantum gravity - the long sought unification of Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum theory.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman blood_pardon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by You
    Questions such as this lie at the outer boundary of modern science and are driving the search for a theory of quantum gravity - the long sought unification of Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum theory.



    Would quantum gravity provide a solution to where space came from?
    Do you know the name of your grandfather? What about your great grandfather? Great great grandfather? In four generations no one will remember you either.
    Paul Washer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    A theory of quantum gravity aims to describe the nature of spacetime on the very smallest scales - the voids in between the smallest known elementary particles - by quantum laws and possibly explain it in terms of some fundamental constituents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman blood_pardon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo
    A theory of quantum gravity aims to describe the nature of spacetime on the very smallest scales - the voids in between the smallest known elementary particles - by quantum laws and possibly explain it in terms of some fundamental constituents.
    I know this has nothing to do with what you said. Do you think if a state existed before space/time it could be measured with time?
    Do you know the name of your grandfather? What about your great grandfather? Great great grandfather? In four generations no one will remember you either.
    Paul Washer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Space 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by blood_pardon
    How do you think space came into existance?
    By attributing all things to Creation. I'm sceptical of creation theories, personally, in any form. If you grant one finite, you must grant them all:

    "Smallest scales" Geo..? :?

    Try grasping without pincers.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Euclidean quantum gravity places space and time on the same footing.

    Euclidean universes have no distinct notion of time. They have no structure to put events into a specific order. Time is imaginary in a mathmatical and colloquial sense.

    Space has an observed number of dimensions of 4.02 +/- 0.1. This number depends on scale - spacetime can have a different number of dimensions. At smaller scales spacetime can have just 2 dimensions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Space 
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by blood_pardon
    How do you think space came into existance?
    By attributing all things to Creation. I'm sceptical of creation theories, personally, in any form. If you grant one finite, you must grant them all:

    "Smallest scales" Geo..? :?

    Try grasping without pincers.
    Classical notions of geometry break down at the smallest scales. The geometry of spacetime obeys nonstandard and nonclassical rules but the concept of distance still applies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman blood_pardon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo
    Euclidean quantum gravity places space and time on the same footing.

    Euclidean universes have no distinct notion of time. They have no structure to put events into a specific order. Time is imaginary in a mathmatical and colloquial sense.

    Space has an observed number of dimensions of 4.02 +/- 0.1. This number depends on scale - spacetime can have a different number of dimensions. At smaller scales spacetime can have just 2 dimensions.
    How do you know "time is imaginary" in an euclidean universe?
    This is all make believe, correct?
    What makes you say spacetime can have different dimensions?


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    By attributing all things to Creation. I'm sceptical of creation theories, personally, in any form. If you grant one finite, you must grant them all
    Im confused. do you believe in intelligent design?

    What do you mean "grant one finite, grant them all"?
    Do you know the name of your grandfather? What about your great grandfather? Great great grandfather? In four generations no one will remember you either.
    Paul Washer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    There are other theories of quantum gravity.

    String theory.
    Loop quantum gravity.
    Euclidean.
    Causal Dynamical Triangulations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman blood_pardon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo
    There are other theories of quantum gravity.
    There are many more ideas than that about the origin of the universe and they all have just as much evidence as the ones you listed. Why subscribe to quantum gravity at all?

    Buddhism
    African Traditional & Diasporic
    Sikhism
    Juche
    Spiritism
    Judaism
    Baha'i
    Jainism
    Shinto
    Cao Dai
    Zoroastrianism
    Tenrikyo
    Neo-Paganism
    Unitarian-Universalism
    Rastafarianism
    Scientology
    Do you know the name of your grandfather? What about your great grandfather? Great great grandfather? In four generations no one will remember you either.
    Paul Washer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by blood_pardon
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    By attributing all things to Creation. I'm sceptical of creation theories, personally, in any form. If you grant one finite, you must grant them all
    Im confused. do you believe in intelligent design?

    What do you mean "grant one finite, grant them all"?
    I don't believe the universe was created, so intelligent design is a moot question.

    "Grant them all" because the conceptual limitation that has people unable to grasp no beginning is a failure to grasp infinity. These same minds must also designate a "smallest scale" for example. Maybe they do fathom infinity but grant it exclusive to God or Buddha or something, I dunno. Anyway the pincers-not-fractal way of grasping things has long embarrassing history. Ironically like fractals themselves it builds to historic highs of increasingly convoluted explanatory theory (AKA wealth of corroborating literature), before collapsing when observation expands the envelope. Then the pincer-people establish a new quantum limit or heaven location or age of universe or whatever. They could keep repeating this forever, imho, because they are fractally wrong.

    The OP question invites creationists of all kinds religious and scientific to compare necessarily finite visions of creation. Whose creator is bigger?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman blood_pardon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I don't believe the universe was created, so intelligent design is a moot question.
    The only alternative to creation is a natural explanation. Do you believe the universe had a begining? Why?
    Do you know the name of your grandfather? What about your great grandfather? Great great grandfather? In four generations no one will remember you either.
    Paul Washer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,376
    [Mod Note]
    Let us please keep superstitious explanations for the cosmos out of the discussion. This is a science forum, therefore superstitious explanations would be off-topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    That's correct. Empirical explanations of the beginning then.

    I say it wasn't the God of Genesis 6,000 years ago. It was a natural force 15 billion years older that created the universe. The proof is in the plainly observable expansion of the universe.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman blood_pardon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    Does the rate of expansion stay the same?
    How large is the universe? Wouldnt the answer to this question be necessary in understanding how much it has expanded?
    Do you know the name of your grandfather? What about your great grandfather? Great great grandfather? In four generations no one will remember you either.
    Paul Washer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    The expansion rate depends on observation i.e. light. This is counteracted by adjusting dark matter and dark energy saturations. You can't directly observe dark forces because the dimensions go up to 11.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman blood_pardon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    Wouldnt the size of the universe be needed in order to estimate how old it is?
    Do you know the name of your grandfather? What about your great grandfather? Great great grandfather? In four generations no one will remember you either.
    Paul Washer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    59
    It's great. These are the most profound questions in the history of humanity - and they can now be cleared up in a couple of forum threads! :P

    Just a couple of points. The big bang theory for the creation of space and time remains a theory. It is not a fact. Whatever big bang may have happened is still disputed. I also agree that a natural force must have created the universe. However that natural force is still mysterious. Can a universe create itself from natural laws? As Stephen Hawking said, why does the universe bother to exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Space 
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,683
    Quote Originally Posted by blood_pardon
    How do you think space came into existance?
    Space comes into existence because virtual particles arise from fluctuations in the zero point energy field. These 'particles' annhilate each other almost immediately after coming into being. Space and the BBT throws up a curious result; everywhere is the centre of the universe from the point of view of an observer. From any point in the universe there extends a similar ocean of quantum vibrations, providing evidence that the universe is a one vast interconnected quantum field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    "Grant them all" because the conceptual limitation that has people unable to grasp no beginning is a failure to grasp infinity.
    Why do so many persons, including those who should know better - as is the case here - conflate and confuse eternity with infinity. Or will you try to be a smart ass and say that since time and space are part of a continuum there is no valid distinction between the two terms?

    Quote Originally Posted by blood-pardon
    The only alternative to creation is a natural explanation. Do you believe the universe had a begining? Why?
    Not if the universe has always existed, which seemed to the point Pong was making until he declared his belief in an origin 15 (sic) billion years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    "Grant them all" because the conceptual limitation that has people unable to grasp no beginning is a failure to grasp infinity.
    Why do so many persons, including those who should know better - as is the case here - conflate and confuse eternity with infinity. Or will you try to be a smart ass and say that since time and space are part of a continuum there is no valid distinction between the two terms?
    I guess in my perspective, all 4 dimensions are equally valid. I could hardly imagine a universe that was infinite in space, but not time, or time but not space.

    Of course, BB theorists can always get around the problem by saying that time itself had a beginning, which seems about as nonsensical as saying length has a beginning. The only sensible way I can see that a dimension could be said to have a beginning is if we should decide to artificially impose one upon it. We just say we're only going to measure from a certain point. So.... I guess if you decide to start measuring from the moment of the Big Bang, then that becomes your starting point. .... but you could just as easily start measuring from January 20, 2010, and call that the starting point of all time. Why not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Why do so many persons, including those who should know better - as is the case here - conflate and confuse eternity with infinity. Or will you try to be a smart ass and say that since time and space are part of a continuum there is no valid distinction between the two terms?
    Eternity is a specific term for infinite time, more often future tense, sometimes as alternate plane of existence. Why should I say mandarin oranges when I mean fruit?

    Ophiolite, do you hold distinct concepts of infinite time vs. eternity? Maybe you think "infinity" in the sense of "undefinable" or even "undefined"...?

    BTW I'm runnin' with 15bya creation since the moderator rightly chided me for superstitious belief in ...eternity... of which no evidence remains or is predicted to appear.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Eternity is a specific term for infinite time,.
    You didn't say infinite time you said infinity, when you apparently meant infinite time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Why should I say mandarin oranges when I mean fruit?
    You have said vegetable when you meant mandarin oranges. Infinity is not the same as eternity. All indications are that you meant eternity, so why say infinity. At the very least, by your own arguments, you should have said infinite time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Ophiolite, do you hold distinct concepts of infinite time vs. eternity?
    I do not use the term infinite time because the word eternity is more precise and concise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Maybe you think "infinity" in the sense of "undefinable" or even "undefined"...?.
    "I certainly do not think of it that way. Why would I?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    BTW I'm runnin' with 15bya creation since the moderator rightly chided me for superstitious belief in ...eternity... of which no evidence remains or is predicted to appear.
    Why fifteen billion years when the currently agree age of the universe is about 13 billion?
    Which ever moderator chided you for a reference to eternity needs to have their knuckles rapped.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Just re-read the paragraph you first quoted from and decide if it's about eternity or the parent concept infinity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Why fifteen billion..?
    We could compromise at 14. I'm thinking more time necessary to explain the unbalanced background radiation (dark flow) which, since it can't possibly come from outside the universe must be remnant of early activity. That, or the Bang was bunched-up at one end.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Just re-read the paragraph you first quoted from and decide if it's about eternity or the parent concept infinity.
    .
    I have done so. Here it is -

    "Grant them all" because the conceptual limitation that has people unable to grasp no beginning is a failure to grasp infinity.

    Beginning is a time related concept. Therefore in this paragraph you are talking about eternity. Eternity relates to time, infinity relates to space. Infinity is not, as you claim, the parent concept of eternity. Eternity and infinity are related concepts, but neither is the parent of the other.

    Eternity relates to endless time.
    Infinity relates to endless space.

    It seems evident from your response that you are unaware of, or do not understand this distinction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    One bolded word encapsulates a paragraph?

    Stop.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Get real man. That is the word that sets the direction of the paragraph. You are talking about time. Do you actually deny this?

    I see you have written STOP. It seems you are unable to accept that you are wrong. So be it. Simmer in your own imprecision and illogic. Don't bother to reply - I'm putting you on Ignore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by blood_pardon
    Wouldnt the size of the universe be needed in order to estimate how old it is?
    no ... there are other methods to estimate the age ...

    however, an estimated age of the universe was needed to determine the minimum size of the universe ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •