Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: General word for content of the universe?

  1. #1 General word for content of the universe? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Hello just want to clear up a physics question and then need help knowing if a term already exists. So the universe basically just energy and matter am I correct? If so is there a term for those 2, saying that the energy and matter of the universe is a constant seems wrong as the values can change but the sum of those two will be always be equal to the Energy created during the big bang.

    So what would the word for the two of those, or how to say that the sum of those will be constant (but not really because E=MC^2) so the sum of E + MC^2 = the value of this term.

    What is this term? If it does not exist one should be made for good reason I believe, "universal energy potential" It makes sense and suits this.

    Let me know what you think.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    How is "universe" not a suitable word?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    If it does not exist one should be made for good reason I believe
    What do you believe is the "good reason" for us to need this term?
    Where would it be used?
    HOW would it be used?


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I believe String Theory uses the word "bulk" for this.

    Brane cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    How is "universe" not a suitable word?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    If it does not exist one should be made for good reason I believe
    What do you believe is the "good reason" for us to need this term?
    Where would it be used?
    HOW would it be used?
    I'd love to answer those for you;

    1) It is a useful term for explaining the "bulk" as Dan Hunter stated. Everything needs a word so I guess that's a good reason. That's like asking why do atoms need the name "Atom".

    2) Where would it be used? In the statement I tried to complete above, the bulk will always stay the same.

    3) The bulk is part of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I believe String Theory uses the word "bulk" for this.

    Brane cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Thank you for the share, that article is difficult to comprehend. So the brane is the universe? Or the "container" for the bulk and the container 3 dimensions of the universe space time is the 4th?

    I want to make sure I am using the terms correctly.

    I appreciate the help!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    Everything needs a word
    Supposition.

    That's like asking why do atoms need the name "Atom".
    No it's not.
    It's like asking "What's the word for the feeling you get when you smell the exhaust from a car on a summer's day?"

    [1) It is a useful term
    2) Where would it be used?
    Um, yeah.
    As in "no".
    You can't do anything with that term (except pretend you're smart - right up until someone asks you to explain what you mean).

    3) The bulk is part of the universe.
    By YOUR OWN DEFINITION that's wrong. "content of the universe".
    Universe: all there is.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    Everything needs a word
    Supposition.

    That's like asking why do atoms need the name "Atom".
    No it's not.
    It's like asking "What's the word for the feeling you get when you smell the exhaust from a car on a summer's day?"

    [1) It is a useful term
    2) Where would it be used?
    Um, yeah.
    As in "no".
    You can't do anything with that term (except pretend you're smart - right up until someone asks you to explain what you mean).

    3) The bulk is part of the universe.
    By YOUR OWN DEFINITION that's wrong. "content of the universe".
    Universe: all there is.
    I see thanks for the critique let me try to respond to some of these.

    What's the word for the feeling you get when you smell the exhaust from a car on a summer's day?

    There isn't a word for that because that is qualitative, there are words for many different feelings each unique person may have. i.e Nausea, Good, bad, etc. Though you could never give it a word because it changes for every person.

    This word isn't for pretending anyone's smart and it's not even a term I made? So if anything the publisher is trying to sound smart but I think don't he/she is.

    It is a useful word and perhaps I made an error an it's usage that's why I asked dan hunter for help if you would read above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    What's the word for the feeling you get when you smell the exhaust from a car on a summer's day?
    There isn't one.
    Because it's not needed.
    (Sort of messes up your argument that "Everything needs a word").
    Likewise it also messes up your argument that we need a word for the "content of the universe".

    There isn't a word for that because that is qualitative
    Whut?
    How do you apply numbers to that?

    there are words for many different feelings each unique person may have. i.e Nausea, Good, bad, etc. Though you could never give it a word because it changes for every person.
    Right. Because, as we all know, nausea, good, bad, etc AREN'T different for every person.

    This word isn't for pretending anyone's smart and it's not even a term I made? So if anything the publisher is trying to sound smart but I think don't he/she is.
    It is a useful word and perhaps I made an error an it's usage that's why I asked dan hunter for help if you would read above.
    Yeah, you appear to have (severely) misunderstood.
    1) Bulk is NOT the word you're looking. The article specifically states that bulk is "a higher-dimensional space" (a THEORETICAL hyperspace). No reference at all to "the contents of our universe".
    2) Like I said earlier: there is, so far as I have ever come across, no requirement for such a term.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    What's the word for the feeling you get when you smell the exhaust from a car on a summer's day?
    There isn't one.
    Because it's not needed.
    (Sort of messes up your argument that "Everything needs a word").
    Likewise it also messes up your argument that we need a word for the "content of the universe".

    There isn't a word for that because that is qualitative
    Whut?
    How do you apply numbers to that?

    there are words for many different feelings each unique person may have. i.e Nausea, Good, bad, etc. Though you could never give it a word because it changes for every person.
    Right. Because, as we all know, nausea, good, bad, etc AREN'T different for every person.

    This word isn't for pretending anyone's smart and it's not even a term I made? So if anything the publisher is trying to sound smart but I think don't he/she is.
    It is a useful word and perhaps I made an error an it's usage that's why I asked dan hunter for help if you would read above.

    Yeah, you appear to have (severely) misunderstood.
    1) Bulk is NOT the word you're looking. The article specifically states that bulk is "a higher-dimensional space" (a THEORETICAL hyperspace). No reference at all to "the contents of our universe".
    2) Like I said earlier: there is, so far as I have ever come across, no requirement for such a term.

    I see, and I see your point, although I just figured this term would be useful.

    How would I see that the energy + mass never changes? I could say that, but that sounds confusing to most people
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    I just figured this term would be useful.
    Why?

    How would I see that the energy + mass never changes? I could say that, but that sounds confusing to most people
    Er yeah.
    And you don't think that merely having a single term (let's call it flibble) would be any less "confusing"?

    "Flibble never changes" is semantically (and scientifically [supposing that term - or any other were adopted]) IDENTICAL to "Energy + mass never changes".
    In other words you're not going to get any useful insight out it, it's not going to make explanations easier nor is it going to aid, let alone advance, science.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    I just figured this term would be useful.
    Why?

    How would I see that the energy + mass never changes? I could say that, but that sounds confusing to most people
    Er yeah.
    And you don't think that merely having a single term (let's call it flibble) would be any less "confusing"?

    "Flibble never changes" is semantically (and scientifically [supposing that term - or any other were adopted]) IDENTICAL to "Energy + mass never changes".
    In other words you're not going to get any useful insight out it, it's not going to make explanations easier nor is it going to aid, let alone advance, science.

    I see maybe it is better to say that full explanation thanks for contributing to this thread and helping me out!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Moisture content is a (?) variable
    By Warron in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 20th, 2014, 10:20 AM
  2. Fair assessment of content.
    By 3SwordBunny in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 18th, 2013, 03:03 AM
  3. Subset of R^p without Zero Content?
    By holysword in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 25th, 2013, 01:10 PM
  4. Determination of Mg content in rocks
    By gayleegoo in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 19th, 2007, 07:20 PM
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
  •