c0r Posted January 23, 2005 Report Posted January 23, 2005 Possible the universe doesn't exist? Ever think of that? What I mean by that is... Well, haven't you thought why does the universe exist? Why isn't there just nothing? Well it doesn't. The universe is just empty space. [infinity = 0] Face a mirror to another mirror. It's the matter that exists. Time is something we created in our own minds. Only the present exists. The past is just recorded in our memory. It just boggles my mind where the hell matter came from and why there is a fixed amount of it. Also why there is a fixed light speed.
Tormod Posted January 23, 2005 Report Posted January 23, 2005 Welcome! Possible the universe doesn't exist? No. That you can ask the question is proof that it exists. Actually, questions like this would probably fall into the philosophy forum rather than the astro/cosmology forum. :)
Tormod Posted January 23, 2005 Report Posted January 23, 2005 The universe is just empty space. [infinity = 0] Face a mirror to another mirror. It's the matter that exists. I would suggest you read our FAQ...these are the kinds of claims we'd like to see some evidence for. :) The universe is not just empty space...if it was, then there would be no planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, etc.
c0r Posted January 23, 2005 Author Report Posted January 23, 2005 Thats not what I mean. I mean that the space in which the planets etc are in is nothing... Its only the matter that exists. When you turn the light off you see black. You know there isn't any light but you can see the absence of light. Maybe like how you can see the absense of matter=space?
c0r Posted January 23, 2005 Author Report Posted January 23, 2005 Actually, questions like this would probably fall into the philosophy forum rather than the astro/cosmology forum. :) ...why?. im talking about the physics of the universe and time...
Queso Posted January 23, 2005 Report Posted January 23, 2005 yes, but these are theories of existance.
infamous Posted January 23, 2005 Report Posted January 23, 2005 Thats not what I mean. I mean that the space in which the planets etc are in is nothing... Its only the matter that exists. When you turn the light off you see black. You know there isn't any light but you can see the absence of light. Maybe like how you can see the absense of matter=space? Welcom c0r; Both relativity and ether theories define space as being something. Let me clarify, according to the relativistic view, space only exists because the Big Bang created it and, without the Big Bang space would not exist. Now to explain this you must understand that without space within which to place matter, matter could not exist. Therefore nothingness, as you refer to it, could not support the presence of matter. Space is not nothingness, space that came into being after the Big Bang is also full of many other things. Cosmic backgroung radation, virtual particles going in and out of existence, and a many other wave particles such as neutrinos, photons, and theoretical things like gravatons. This space we call the universe can be understood in simple terms as, a bubble surrounded by nothingness. However nothing can exist beyond the bubble, only if and when there is another bubble beyond our own, another universe so to speak. Space is a place where something like matter can exist. Nothingness cannot contain anything.
maddog Posted January 24, 2005 Report Posted January 24, 2005 Thats not what I mean. I mean that the space in which the planets etc are in is nothing... Its only the matter that exists. When you turn the light off you see black. You know there isn't any light but you can see the absence of light. Maybe like how you can see the absense of matter=space? If you have something like a universe and you remove everything. Then you would have"nothing". Since even space and time have not reference with anything. Check out a bookby Brian Greene, "Elegant Universe". He covers this one of the chapters on the developmentof SR. I agree with Tormod, this discussion is not as much about physics as about thephilosophy of existence. However, I can build a mathematical analogy. You have a set of numbers and you removeall the numbers, you still have nothing the (empty set). And yes, the Empty Set is a set. So you see, you can have a Theory of Nothing. Though it is worth Nothing as well. :) Maddog
Tormod Posted January 24, 2005 Report Posted January 24, 2005 Its only the matter that exists. When you turn the light off you see black. You know there isn't any light but you can see the absence of light. Maybe like how you can see the absense of matter=space? Energy and matter are only different aspects of the same. The universe as a whole may have little matter but it is full of energy. High energy particles are everywhere. It is only to the naked eye that the sky appears black at night (by the way, black is not the absence of light, it is the absence of color - different concept). Matter is not the same as space. Einstein showed however that space and time are related in the same way that matter and energy are related. That is why the concept of space-time was revolutionary - it discerned with the Newtionian notion of an absolute time and showed that time is relative. So space-time is a result of the inflation and expansion after the big bang (which was neither big nor a bang, btw). The matter is a result of the energy which came out of it.
Tormod Posted January 24, 2005 Report Posted January 24, 2005 Actually, there is at least one solution for Einstein's theory of relativity which allows a universe to be completely empty.
Tormod Posted January 24, 2005 Report Posted January 24, 2005 This space we call the universe can be understood in simple terms as, a bubble surrounded by nothingness. This is a common view but hardly correct. In fact, the universe is more likely a flat surface in multiple dimensions - like the surface of balloon but with the addition of thickness. This interpretation also allows the universe to be spatially finite in reach yet have no finite boundary.
paultrr Posted January 24, 2005 Report Posted January 24, 2005 Einstein original theory was based upon what could be termed an empty space-time which was static in that it never expanded or contracted. To get his static universe he utilized his cosmological constant. The problem with the constant he used was it was like a pencil ballanced on its point. Sooner or later it would go one way or another. So in later versions he droped that constant calling it his worst blunder. But, his original empty set gave us in later modifications the very foundation upon which almost all of modern theory is built. An interesting aspect out of math that is well known and yet, seldom actually paid attention to is the effect of a zero in equations. If a zero is used one way you simply get a pure empty result. But if a zero is used another way you get infinity as a result. Despite the fact that I tend to stay out of all the religion motivated discussions that appear on science forums for the most part it is interesting that both creationism as commonly upheld by the christian religion and modern science both have the universe created out of nothing or an empty set. The power pregant within a simple zero is far under rated by many. Our vacuum, as I have pointed out to a few before has never actually since the advent of modern quantum theory been a real empty set at all. There was an article that appeared in print a bit back that mentions that Einstein emptied the aether Newton had given us of everything and modern science filled that empty set back up. Nature tends to abhor a pure empty set and always seems to fill that set with something. In the case of the universe its filled with potential energy and realized energy in the form of different particles.
infamous Posted January 24, 2005 Report Posted January 24, 2005 This is a common view but hardly correct. In fact, the universe is more likely a flat surface in multiple dimensions - like the surface of balloon but with the addition of thickness. This interpretation also allows the universe to be spatially finite in reach yet have no finite boundary. Agreed Tormod; But that is why I used the words "in simple terms" to discribe a very complex issue. Your definition is truly much more correct, it is however much more difficult for we laymen to fully comprehend. You do have a way with words.
Recommended Posts