1. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    18 Oct '16 17:19
    Originally posted by apathist
    originally posted by [b]humy
    <space> is <something>.
    What is space other then the m/e within it?

    (Such that it can expand and be curved as if it were a substance.)[/b]
    It's unclear to me whether you are making an ontological claim of your own, or claiming that in the Theory of General Relativity the space like dimensions are physical but time is just a parameter. If the latter then this is incorrect. In Einstein's paradigm the universe is a four dimensional manifold with a Lorentzian metric, which means that coordinate transforms between different observers' reference frames mix the time and space coordinates. They are one substance in the theory. This is a big difference from the Newtonian picture with a three dimensional universe with time as a parameter. However, General Relativity is at odds with Quantum theory. Quantum theories are usually constructed in a specific frame of reference and do not treat time in a completely covariant fashion. So, if you are making an ontological claim then you may be right, but you have to go beyond Einstein's theory to justify it and so it's speculative.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '16 21:02
    Originally posted by apathist
    Despite the physics maths, an broken egg will never jump off the floor and reassemble on the table.
    That is where you are wrong.
    Along the time dimension we have:
    1. Egg on table.
    2. Egg in air.
    3. Egg on floor.
    Depending on which way you go along the timeline, you may see the egg jump off the floor and reassemble on the table.

    The key difference is just entropy. Entropy causes us to predict the past much more accurately than the future to the point where we believe we can remember the past but no remember the future. So there clearly is a difference in the Maths, but that doesn't stop the maths working in both directions.

    Its also odd that you essentially claim that the egg could fall off the table and smash on the floor given that you also claim the past doesn't exist and the egg was never on the table in the first place.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Oct '16 07:382 edits
    Originally posted by apathist
    originally posted by [b]humy
    <space> is <something>.
    What is space other then the m/e within it?

    (Such that it can expand and be curved as if it were a substance.)[/b]
    I don't understand your question.
    What has this " other then the m/e " got to do with it?
    Are you implying the very definition of space requires mass and energy ( m/e ) being within it and, if so, why would that be?
    (I am well aware of virtual particles and zero-point energy being in a vacuum of space so I am not questioning that but rather questioning why, if this is what you imply, would virtual particles and zero-point energy being in a vacuum be a requirement for the very definition of space as if it wouldn't even make sense to even talk about space without that! )
    And how do you define "substance" here?
  4. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    19 Oct '16 09:19
    Originally posted by humy
    I don't understand your question.
    What has this " other then the m/e " got to do with it?
    Are you implying the very definition of space requires mass and energy ( m/e ) being within it and, if so, why would that be?
    (I am well aware of virtual particles and zero-point energy being in a vacuum of space so I am not questioning that but rather que ...[text shortened]... e sense to even talk about space without that! )
    And how do you define "substance" here?
    Remember I'm asking, given those two analogies: if space is nothing, then how can it expand be curved? We know material can expand or curve, but space is not material. I think the analogies imply that space is something rather than nothing, and we know it isn't material, so what is it? That's all.
  5. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    19 Oct '16 09:21
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Depending on which way you go along the timeline, you may see the egg jump off the floor and reassemble on the table.
    That is the map. The math leads you astray. I'm talking about reality.

    Gotta run, will tackle your posts later. Have a good day!
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Oct '16 10:17
    Originally posted by apathist
    That is the map. The math leads you astray. I'm talking about reality.
    No, actually, you are talking about your perception of reality. The math is closer to reality than your perception of it.
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Oct '16 20:43
    Originally posted by apathist
    if space is nothing, .
    Space is 'something'.

    We know material can expand or curve, but space is not material

    I asked you what do you mean by "substance" in this context. Now I have to ask you what do you mean by "material" in this context.
  8. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    20 Oct '16 05:11
    Originally posted by humy
    Space is 'something'.

    We know material can expand or curve, but space is not material

    I asked you what do you mean by "substance" in this context. Now I have to ask you what do you mean by "material" in this context.
    His question seems clear enough, and I've wondered the same thing.

    If you remove all material (everything that has physical substance; mass/energy) from space, would what you have left simply be space? Can space exist without 'stuff', or is the existence of space entirely dependent on the 'stuff' found in space?
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    20 Oct '16 06:146 edits
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    .... or is the existence of space entirely dependent on the 'stuff' found in space?
    When you say "dependent" there, do you mean asking if the very definition of something being space is "dependent" on 'stuff' (by which you mean mass/energy? if not, what do you mean by 'stuff'? ) being within it thus it is logically impossible to have space without some 'stuff' being within it? or are you asking if it is causally impossible to have space without some 'stuff' being within it? (as a result of natural law which has nothing to do with the definition of something) ?
    -these two questions are completely different questions and shouldn't be confused with one another.
    If you are asking if it is logically impossible, I would say, unless you count empty space itself as 'stuff', definitely no; i.e. is logically possible to have space containing no 'stuff' within it.
    If you are asking if it is causally impossible, I would say I don't know because that I think depends on whether you count virtual particles and zero-point energy as 'stuff' being in space.
  10. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    20 Oct '16 06:44
    Originally posted by humy
    When you say "dependent" there, do you mean asking if the very definition of something being space is "dependent" on 'stuff' (by which you mean mass/energy being within it? if not, need to define what you mean by 'stuff'😉 being within it thus it is logically impossible to have space without some 'stuff' being within it? or are you asking if it is ...[text shortened]... depends on whether you count virtual particles and zero-point energy as 'stuff' being in space.
    I'm not sure what you mean about virtual particles and zero point energy in space, because it seems you are suggesting space existed prior to the big bang event.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    20 Oct '16 08:206 edits
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    I'm not sure what you mean about virtual particles and zero point energy in space, because it seems you are suggesting space existed prior to the big bang event.
    What! Where did you get that from!
    What has virtual particles and zero point energy being in space got to do with whether "space existed prior to the big bang"?
    You do know what virtual particles and zero point energy are, right?
    I don't pretend to really understand the physics behind it (only half-understand quantum physics; only fully understand the simpler concepts of it such as where Planck's constant actually comes from etc ) but;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

    and

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

    and the gist of it in our current narrow context of subject matter is that, according to science, even apparently 'empty' space ( at least 'empty' in layperson's language ) contains both virtual particles and zero point energy contained within it; no idea what that has got to do with whether "space existed prior to the big bang"!
  12. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    20 Oct '16 17:19
    Originally posted by humy
    What! Where did you get that from!
    What has virtual particles and zero point energy being in space got to do with whether "space existed prior to the big bang"?
    You do know what virtual particles and zero point energy are, right?
    I don't pretend to really understand the physics behind it (only half-understand quantum physics; only fully understand the simple ...[text shortened]... d within it; no idea what that has got to do with whether "space existed prior to the big bang"!
    The question has to do with space. Virtual particles supposedly existed before the big bang, and space was one of the things created by the big bang. Mass and energy as we know it were also created by the big bang and did not exist prior to that event. But virtual particles supposedly exist whether space exists or not, so I don't know what virtual particles have to do with apathists question about space... as I understand it his question has to do with anything having physical material reality vs space.
  13. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    21 Oct '16 00:21
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    The question has to do with space. Virtual particles supposedly existed before the big bang, and space was one of the things created by the big bang. Mass and energy as we know it were also created by the big bang and did not exist prior to that event. But virtual particles supposedly exist whether space exists or not, so I don't know what virtual particl ...[text shortened]... I understand it his question has to do with anything having physical material reality vs space.
    Virtual particles existed before the big bang? If the field does not exist then how can it fluctuate? I see the first moment as more a matter of order out of chaos than the creation of things.
  14. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    21 Oct '16 01:08
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Virtual particles existed before the big bang? If the field does not exist then how can it fluctuate? I see the first moment as more a matter of order out of chaos than the creation of things.
    Virtual particles existed before the big bang?
    This is according to one theory of how everything supposedly all came from nothing. I don't necessarily subscribe to this theory, but we seem to have wandered into the weeds here because it doesn't address apathist's question...
    What is space other then the m/e within it?
    (Such that it can expand and be curved as if it were a substance.)
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    21 Oct '16 06:324 edits
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    [b]Virtual particles existed before the big bang?
    This is according to one theory of how everything supposedly all came from nothing. [/b][/b]
    this isn't one of the theories I for one have ever personally heard of and I fail to see why you would assume I might believe such a theory.
    I don't even see how this theory can even relate to anything we just previously discussed even if I hypothetically were to believe this theory.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree