Happy Atheist Forum

One of my favorite sites for unfiltered science news is physorg.com because they refuse to dumb down their writing. I was perusing a couple of days ago and ran across this interesting article about a new way to imagine our universal model. That is to say, Wun-Yi Shu things the universe could have had no beginning and no end. That means no pesky, infinitely dense singularity at the beginning and no need for sudden expansion to explain the redshift. The theory also does away with a need for the mysterious ( and possibly mythical) entity known as dark matter. A theory that can finally unify many of the things we know about the universe, while also pushing past the issues with previous theories like string theory and the incompatibility of general relativity with newer findings and models is very exciting. Does anyone have experience in the field or perhaps a scholarly interest, that could give us some insight on how this could effect how we deal with universal models or does anyone have any thoughts on this intriguing new study? The link is below.

http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html (http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html)

Way beyond my understanding. However, if the theory explains the observed phenomena better than the current theory I hope it gets the attention and informed criticism it will need to become accepted as a better explanation. Most interesting, thanks for the link.

hmmmmm interesting.  I'll re-read when I get home this afternoon and do some research

Well, lacking an academic subscription, I can't view his actual paper (not that I would probably understand it anyway), but from the report, I'm not too impressed. Sure, he gets rid of dark energy (which I agree, is a massive, massive fudge), but introduces a load of other stuff, which will all need verification.

From the simplified report, I can't see any reasonable explanation for time converting to space and vice versa. The bit about time being converted into space, and the inherent conversion factor seems inherently fishy to me, time and space are certainly related in a traditional view, they both act as means of co-ordinate separations, but while the two forms can be taken as the same in that sense, a direct conversion between the two doesn't make sense to me, as I said though, I only read the abridged version. Also, when the universe is contracting in this model, does mean the flow of time would reverse? That's something that would bork some pretty important parts of physics, you would need a hell of a reason to throw away the arrow of time.

I should point out though, I am slightly suspicious of theoreticals, if you actually hear some of the stuff they come out with, and then have no idea how to test it at all, it becomes pretty boring, fast. Sure, there are some major, major successes in the field, like predicting the weight of the W bosons, but the vast majority of it, you want to take with a titanic pinch of salt.

P.S. I'm afraid to say, everything is dumbed down, even if you take lecture courses in it, short of doing the project yourself, there is almost always going to be a loss  of information in communication.

Edit, scratch that, got the paper.

Quote from: "SSY"Well, lacking an academic subscription, I can't view his actual paper (not that I would probably understand it anyway), but from the report, I'm not too impressed. Sure, he gets rid of dark energy (which I agree, is a massive, massive fudge), but introduces a load of other stuff, which will all need verification.

From the simplified report, I can't see any reasonable explanation for time converting to space and vice versa. The bit about time being converted into space, and the inherent conversion factor seems inherently fishy to me, time and space are certainly related in a traditional view, they both act as means of co-ordinate separations, but while the two forms can be taken as the same in that sense, a direct conversion between the two doesn't make sense to me, as I said though, I only read the abridged version. Also, when the universe is contracting in this model, does mean the flow of time would reverse? That's something that would bork some pretty important parts of physics, you would need a hell of a reason to throw away the arrow of time.

I should point out though, I am slightly suspicious of theoreticals, if you actually hear some of the stuff they come out with, and then have no idea how to test it at all, it becomes pretty boring, fast. Sure, there are some major, major successes in the field, like predicting the weight of the W bosons, but the vast majority of it, you want to take with a titanic pinch of salt.

P.S. I'm afraid to say, everything is dumbed down, even if you take lecture courses in it, short of doing the project yourself, there is almost always going to be a loss  of information in communication.

Edit, scratch that, got the paper.

That was one of my first thoughts as well. When space begins to contract does time contract as well. Even if it doesn't reverse would it slow? I guess we will have to wait for the heavy hitters to do a peer review of his models. I would keep my skepticism on tap but let us not forget that a great many theories that unified exiting theories (like GR) moved the ball forward while still having it's own issues. The fact that GR has yet to be reconciled with quantum physics does not diminish the fact that it was a breakthrough in how we understand cosmology. This new model is very elegant and explanatory,so let's see where it goes.

It was an exciting read nonetheless.

Ok.... I have read.  Interesting though it is I have to agree with Sophus with the conversion between time and space, seems off.

I can get the idea of the interchange between space and time by analogizing to the interchange between energy and matter; but then, when it comes to physics, I'm good at ice-hockey.

I'm nobbling one of my sources to grab the paper now. There are a few thoughts that immediately occur to me, just from the article and the abstract.

The first is the whole issue with the varying speed of light. The relativistic implications of that are not inconsequential, as mass/energy equivalence is directly related to it. Not only that, but observations of light from pretty close to the big bang all arrive at c, so this conversion would have to impart some sort of force, and that arouses many questions.

Some of the things that it addresses are not necessarily things that need to be addressed. The solution to the flatness problem provided by Guth's inflationary model does require some parameters to fit within a very narrow band of values, there is no good reason to suppose, as yet, that those values weren't met.

The citation 'no beginning or end to time' being a distinguishing feature of this model is not accurate, because Guth's model again addresses this (indeed, that was the motivation for the formulation of the inflationary model), as does the Turok/Steinhardt model, and the Hwking/Hartle No-Boundary model.

The singularity problem is also addressed, but this time by Turok and Steinhardt's 'brane-worlds' model. Now, of course, this model is rooted in M-Theory, which often gets the purists' backs up, but at least they have provided possible falsification for it, meaning that it is, in principle, testable. We'll have to see what the LHC's GWDs turn up when they're up to full power physics runs for a bit of time.

Quote from: "SSY"Also, when the universe is contracting in this model, does mean the flow of time would reverse?

That's an interesting thought. I wouldn't have thought so. I actually have issue with the bang/crunch idea anyway, given the acceleration of expansion.

Edit: Ah, thought the paper was behind a paywall. Reading now.

Hmm. Maybe it's just because I'm an audio geek and the notation is different, but I've hit upon a thing or two that have me concerned. Firstly, on page 13, the following notation is given:

Since the speed of light  c , wavelength  Î» , and frequency  Î½  are related by  c=λν

In the first place, that's not my understanding of the notation. In my understanding, v is phase velocity and frequency is f. As I say, that might be differing notation, but I don't think so. Secondly, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength, yet in this model, one is given as constant while the other varies. Some of this is, I admit, a bit above my head, but there are other issues, as well. Pretty much every constant cited in the paper is now a variable, for one thing, which gives me pause, especially since some of these constants form the foundation of much of modern physics.

Either this model is set to replace a lot of modern physics, and not just the competing cosmological hypotheses, but I mean some of our best established physics, or it's nonsense. I can't tell which.

Oh, and it still doesn't provide us with quantum gravity, as far as I can tell.

What is the pedigree of the author of the paper?

I can find several papers with him as co-author (or somebody else named W.Y. Shu at the National Tsing Hua University Institute of Statistics), but they mostly seem to be biology. Stuff like 'gene expression microarrays', 'Zero-Force Binding Energetics of an Intercalated DNA Complex by a Single-Molecule Approach', etc.

Edit: All the citations I can find for this lead back to the arxiv page, and I can't find a serious review of it yet.

Hmmmm    So while not in the same area he appears legitimate so unlikely to be 'making shit up'?

Indeed. Probably not a crackpot, but this will take some serious re-writing of the laws of physics, if I read it correctly. I'll PM a link to some of the physics geeks at RS and see what they say. Newolder might have some interesting insight, among others.

Newolders input would be very valuable.

Just spotted an error in my first response arising from an edit:

QuoteThe citation 'no beginning or end to time' being a distinguishing feature of this model is not accurate, because Guth's model again addresses this [strike:3pgoluh5](indeed, that was the motivation for the formulation of the inflationary model)[/strike:3pgoluh5], as does the Turok/Steinhardt model, and the Hwking/Hartle No-Boundary model.

The reason for this was that I incorrectly dealt with something in the article and thought that it had been cited as a distinguishing feature, because I remembered at least one of them not being a distinguishing feature. I corrected that before posting, but forgot to remove the comment about the motivation. The motivation for the inflationary model was, of course, the horizon problem.

Just thought I'd point that out before I got roasted for it. I'm not sure how you do things here yet, but in some of the places I frequent, I'd already have been on the spit by now. :lol:

Quote from: "hackenslash"Just spotted an error in my first response arising from an edit:

QuoteThe citation 'no beginning or end to time' being a distinguishing feature of this model is not accurate, because Guth's model again addresses this [strike:gs7j3f99](indeed, that was the motivation for the formulation of the inflationary model)[/strike:gs7j3f99], as does the Turok/Steinhardt model, and the Hwking/Hartle No-Boundary model.

The reason for this was that I incorrectly dealt with something in the article and thought that it had been cited as a distinguishing feature, because I remembered at least one of them not being a distinguishing feature. I corrected that before posting, but forgot to remove the comment about the motivation. The motivation for the inflationary model was, of course, the horizon problem.

Just thought I'd point that out before I got roasted for it. I'm not sure how you do things here yet, but in some of the places I frequent, I'd already have been on the spit by now. :lol:

Roasting is reserved for the bad guys (if Whitney lets then stay long enough).

That's OK. It would have saved me a fiver at the tanning salon.  

Here's a pretty damning review of the paper (http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/).

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

Quote from: "hackenslash"Here's a pretty damning review of the paper (http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/).

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

Unfortunately this refutation is even further over my head than the original paper.    However I'm sure it keeps people off the street (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)

Thanks for the link though I will attempt to read it again when my brain has cooled down a little.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Here's a pretty damning review of the paper (http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/).

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

I look forward to posting a replying to this - in four to five years and a new qualification later.

Actually, I will give it a stab.

Edit: this entire blog looks rather interesting. I may refer to this in the future. Thank you hackenslash!

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Here's a pretty damning review of the paper (http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/).

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

I look forward to posting a replying to this - in four to five years and a new qualification later.

Actually, I will give it a stab.

Edit: this entire blog looks rather interesting. I may refer to this in the future. Thank you hackenslash!

That sounds interesting Dretlin. What are you going to study?

Sorry, not buying it. The math may work out theoretically, but that doesn't make it true. Something is true because it matches reality, not because a well regarded person says it.  What was that rubbish about mass converting to length? Space to time I was thinking, "Interesting, that might make sense." Mass to length... Not so much.  This is too radical for me to think it's believable. We'd be giving up too much of physics that has been based on observation, in order to obtain a prettier equation.

This would mean giving up the arrow of time, which doesn't make sense, because in all of Human history, we've never begun to remember the future and look ahead to the past. This would end the constant speed of light, which makes no sense, because everywhere we look in the universe, the speed of light is the same.

This is like the BIRDEMIC of science! :D

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Here's a pretty damning review of the paper (http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/).

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

I look forward to posting a replying to this - in four to five years and a new qualification later.

Actually, I will give it a stab.

Edit: this entire blog looks rather interesting. I may refer to this in the future. Thank you hackenslash!

That sounds interesting Dretlin. What are you going to study?

I am doing a joint honours but I am yet to pick my second subject. Though I am considering a science along side my main study, which is music.

Doesn't refractive media change the speed of light?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Doesn't refractive media change the speed of light?

Yes. But only while it's inside the lens. The speed of light is at its maximum in a vacuum. When travelling through a transparent substance the speed of light can be reduced considerably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

QuoteThe second concept of the speed of light in a material is the average velocity of a pulse consisting of different frequencies. This is called the group velocity  and depends not only on the properties of the medium but also on the distribution of frequencies in the pulse. A pulse with different group and phase velocities (which occurs if the phase velocity is not the same for all the frequencies of the pulse) is said to undergo dispersion. Certain materials have an exceptionally low group velocity for light waves, a phenomenon called slow light. In 1999, a team of scientists led by Lene Hau were able to slow the speed of a light pulse to about 17 metres per second (61 km/h; 38 mph);

Trés suave, merci beaucoup.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Doesn't refractive media change the speed of light?

Fire a Laser through a Bose/Einstein Condensate. Light has actually been slowed to 50mph this way!  
Just one question: can you afford a massive laser cooling device to chill Hydrogen to a temperature near absolute zero?

No?

Damn!

I've got a pretty good fridge, though.  a room-temp beer will ice up in four hours, if I so desire.

I thought I would clear up one thing.  I don't see anything that says that time would move backwards if you converted space to time.  If time is converted to space and mass converted to length, he says that the reverse is true, meaning that space can be converted to time and length converted to mass.  None of this conversion is outside of its current temporal relation that I can see, and that is actually a problem with what he's talking about, or a problem with my understanding.  I imagine it is a problem with my understanding, since this stuff is way over my head for the most part.  If I am right though, there is still a problem.

Now, someone said they could see how time can be converted to space, but not how mass can be converted to length.  I have the opposite problem.  I can see how length and mass can be connected, only because if you stretch out the space some given amount of matter takes up, it becomes less massive.  The hard part comes in where you have to imagine mass where there is no space, which is one of those problems I have with big bang models.  You can never get to T=0 with them.  If you remove all space, that means there is nowhere for any mass to hide, since it has no "where" there.

My problem is, I can't figure out what you have if you have more and less time based on what he's saying.  I'll have to look at it more in depth when I have more time.

Well, from what I understand, the singularity is what contained space itself.

Quote from: "Godlessons"I thought I would clear up one thing.  I don't see anything that says that time would move backwards if you converted space to time.  If time is converted to space and mass converted to length, he says that the reverse is true, meaning that space can be converted to time and length converted to mass.  None of this conversion is outside of its current temporal relation that I can see, and that is actually a problem with what he's talking about, or a problem with my understanding.  I imagine it is a problem with my understanding, since this stuff is way over my head for the most part.  If I am right though, there is still a problem.

Now, someone said they could see how time can be converted to space, but not how mass can be converted to length.  I have the opposite problem.  I can see how length and mass can be connected, only because if you stretch out the space some given amount of matter takes up, it becomes less massive.  The hard part comes in where you have to imagine mass where there is no space, which is one of those problems I have with big bang models.  You can never get to T=0 with them.  If you remove all space, that means there is nowhere for any mass to hide, since it has no "where" there.

My problem is, I can't figure out what you have if you have more and less time based on what he's saying.  I'll have to look at it more in depth when I have more time.

It's implied by the idea that the expansion of the universe is due to the conversion between time and space. Driving the arrow of time forward, and the expansion of the universe outward. If this conversion work both ways, causing the universe to expand and contract. The idea that contraction of the universe is possible implies that the arrow of time could begin to move backward.

I just find it hard to visualize. I suppose length IS just another spatial dimension, like time. So really they both make the same amount of sense (Space is to time as Mass is to length). I'm not convinced. This theory is completely unsubstantiated. If it picks up speed within the scientific community, then maybe I'll reconsider it.

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? I like the direction this guy seems to be going in I just want to see how he gets there.

I've always rejected the concept of a universe which begins and ends. Also the concept of a singularity doesn't really explain the birth of the universe because the singularity itself(Which seems to have energy and/or mass in some form bound up within it) can't just come from nowhere. Its like a theist saying "god made the universe" then someone saying "what made god?" It seems to me that we are just trying to make the laws of physics conform to our expectations(Something we can easily process which "makes sense" in our minds). Our minds evolved to deal with a relatively simple level of reality. We have little need(As far it effects our survival and ability to pass on our genes.) to understand the bigger picture but most of us strive to do so anyway. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the true nature of reality(The inherit laws which govern our universe.) are completely beyond our ability to comprehend. We might be a little like Plato's cave-dwellers doing our best to understand things we can't really see. (At the same time our minds aren't the least bit equiped to deal with this unseen reality.)

Quote from: "Prometheus"Does anyone have a link to the actual paper?

pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1750v1)

QuoteI've always rejected the concept of a universe which begins and ends. Also the concept of a singularity doesn't really explain the birth of the universe because the singularity itself(Which seems to have energy and/or mass in some form bound up within it) can't just come from nowhere.

This constitutes a mimsunderstanding of just what a singularity is, along with some misconceptions about the input for the big bang. Firstly, a singularity is simply a place in which our theories break or yield absurd results. In the case of the big bang singularity (which has not been established), we are talking about a quantum event with significant relativistic mass, and any time QM and GR are brought together, the yielded results are infinities, which are a clear sign that something has gone wrong. This is why the search for a quantum theory of gravity is seen as the most important area of physical research at the moment. Secondly, the idea that the big bang singularity came from 'nowhere' is a bit misleading. 'Nowhere' refers to a spatial location, and there was no space before the big bang, so the idea is meaningless. Further, there are models on the table that may provide the energy input for cosmic instantiation, and some of them are even testable.

Blast. I reevaluated most of what I know about the subject after reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by bill bryson. I've not been all that impressed by his "insights" into fields I am more familiar with(Chemistry, biology, and newtonian physics.) but I finished the book anyway because it was a gift from a proffessor. He described the singularity as something more of a cosmic event and less of a mathmatical premise.

Quote'Nowhere' refers to a spatial location, and there was no space before the big bang, so the idea is meaningless. Further, there are models on the table that may provide the energy input for cosmic instantiation, and some of them are even testable

I put that a little to plainly then. I wasn't aware my statements would be picked apart to such an extent. To rephrase: The Matter and Energy(I refered to this earlier as the singularity) which, according to the theory, were present before the "big bang" has to have come from somewere(Not a place. I'm saying it can't just suddenly come into existance from nothing.).
           I've read a little about the "energy input" you mentioned. Most of the theories I've heard involve darkmatter. You have nothing, then u have something and antisomething which sum to nothing so its all mathmatically sound(Rofl). I don't have muct to say in regards to them except that they seem a little too convenient. I can get behind nuclear physics where matter and energy are interchangeable but its gonna take some hard evidence to convince me that Something can come from Nothing. But like I said before, we're all basing our reasoning on reality as we understand it based on past experiences here on earth and the "Equation of everything" might just be beyond our comprehention now and possibly forever.

Either way I don't see the "Big bang" theory as a valid answer to where the universe began for the reasons I mentioned before(There still no answer to "Where did all this crap come from? And where will it go?").

Thanks for the link.

I haven't actually come across any theory of cosmic instantiation that employs dark matter, and that wouldn't explain the input anyway. Guth's inflationary model is a good one, and involves only physics we experience in our cosmic expansion. The other front runner at the moment is the Turok/Steinhardt 'brane-worlds' model, which is very interesting and testable to boot. This provides a quite parsimonious explanation for the energy input. As far as I'm aware, nobody is really suggesting 'something from nothing', not least because 'nothing' is a completely invalid concept, and would constitute a violation of one of our best established principles.

As for the Bryson book, I found the whole thing to be a little woolly, but especially in the areas I have some understanding of, such as cosmology.

Yeah lol. Bryson has that habit of "dumbing things down" to the point that they wind up just being dumb. I read a history book with a similar problem last week.

If you look hard enough, someone, somewhere, is suggesting pretty much every crazy idea that could be thought up :P . I know i saw that theory somewhere about matter and antimatter being created simultaneously.(The nothing and something i was talking about. It was represented as two inverse sinosoidal waves.) Wish i could find it, ive read way too many random papers, most of which are probably baseless crap.

The brane worlds thing is cool, i dont know much about it honestly but it was referenced in a sci fi novel called Olympos by Dan simmons. Great book.

I'm more interested in string theory now although i dislike the fact that its founders seem to be saying its untestable.(Can it be a theory if its untestable lol)

Are you still here by the way? I know its been a while.

Quote from: hackenslash on August 17, 2010, 09:14:12 AM
Firstly, a singularity is simply a place in which our theories break or yield absurd results. In the case of the big bang singularity (which has not been established), we are talking about a quantum event with significant relativistic mass, and any time QM and GR are brought together, the yielded results are infinities, which are a clear sign that something has gone wrong.

A singularity is energy/matter with zero volume, which means it has infinite density. I don't believe this is possible.

Quote from: hackenslash on August 17, 2010, 09:14:12 AM
there was no space before the big bang

Scientists don't know what was around before the big bang. I think it is absurd to suggest that there was no space prior.
Space is not a substance. Space is merely a conceptual three dimensional coordinate system. Space does not exist, never has done, never will.

Although I must say that it is interesting to consider what is "distance". If Space isn't a substance then how can there be distance between two objects e.g. Earth and the moon. What keeps track of where things are positioned within non existent Space? Where is this spacial attribute stored?
Einstein proved that distance is relative to speed. We have no idea how fast we are traveling through Space. We don't know what a stationary point in space would be or even if such a thing exists.

We don't know if there are other big bangs, thus other universes in Space, we don't know if there is a three dimensional path between our universe and other universes. We don't know if our perception of our universe matches the perception of an observer outside our universe. It is possible that what we perceive as a very large, very fast expansion of energy and matter looks like empty space to someone outside our universe. Thus our perception of distance and substance could be very different.

Our perception of space, of reality, is a three dimensional coordinate system, which is all relative with no absolutes. The only thing really that we know is that regardless of where you are, how much mass you have or how fast you are going, the speed that you observe unimpeded light traveling at is a constant.

BTW, if anyone understands what I have just said, then hats off to you. I understand my own thoughts but to try and explain them in an articulate and understandable fashion to someone else, it a real challenge.

Quote from: KebertX on August 12, 2010, 04:12:20 AM
Space is to time as Mass is to length

As far as I understand it, this statement is incorrect.
We can't relate anything to space.
Time relates to matter and energy. Without matter and energy there would be no time.

Quote from: Prometheus on June 28, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
Are you still here by the way? I know its been a while.

This is such an old thread. I don't think Hack is around, he disappeared for a while, turned up not long ago but hasn't really been posting as of late.
It is unfortunate as he has a good grasp on cosmology, science and quantum physics, he was always a great contributor to the forum.

It seems that advanced physicists see space as more than simply 3 dimensional "Nothing". If you start looking at relativity and such(Which i barely understand) space and time appear to be something rather than simply the absence of anything. Funny as hell when you consider ancient theory on the subject which often treated the vacuum of space as an "aether" with almost magical properties.

I really don't have a good grasp on any of this, as you learn more about it you realize that only those who specialize in physics or perhaps very dedicated hobbyists are able to keep up with the more advanced aspects of physics(Or chemistry or other fields). I myself don't have much faith in our modern theories, some of them may be close to the truth but my money says centuries from now people look back at them the same way we look back at the greeks(And many times scientists from just a century or two ago). its funny how we all seem to to think we've just now gotten everything right when we know people a few decades or centuries ago thought the same thing about ideas that are almost laughable now.

Quote from: Prometheus on July 02, 2012, 08:00:15 AM
It seems that advanced physicists see space as more than simply 3 dimensional "Nothing". If you start looking at relativity and such(Which i barely understand) space and time appear to be something rather than simply the absence of anything

I don't know what advanced physicists think or know.
Did a google search and it seems many people have many different ideas.

I personally wouldn't define the substance of space by what is contained within it. If I have a box and I have toys in it, it is a box. If I take all the toys out of it, it is still a box.
Space is not like a box, it doesn't have any borders, it is not made of substance (as far as i am aware). As our universe expands it takes up more and more volume within space, it never reaches the limits of space, does this mean coincidentally that it is creating space? I don't think so.

If there are two expanding universes within 3 dimensional space is it possible for them to expand so much that they collide?
If so then there is a spacial path between them, a relative timeline and a coordinate system separating them by distance. It is interesting to think about.

When i get some time i will do spend some more time trying to find out what actual physicists, cosmologists think space is.

If there is no spacial path between two universes and if space only comes into existence along with matter/energy and time (a space bubble if you will) then the implications are inelegant.

It means that all the energy and matter that make up our universe had to have come into existence all at once, in the instant of the big bang. This means that there was nothing and then poof "everything". It means that there was no slow accumulation of energy/matter over the aeons of seemingly infinite "time".
Why couldn't things accumulate? Because as we have asserted as a premise that there is no spacial path between two universes (because space is bound to an individual universe instance).

Another inelegant implication is the problem of black holes. It means that black holes will last forever (as nothing can escape the gravity grip of a black hole). As black holes over time collect energy/matter they simply get more and more massive and the energy/matter becomes lost to the "free space" within our universe.

Another non elegant implication is the problem of infinity. Scientists have proven that our universe will continually expand forever, dissipating into virtual nothingness. If our Earth were able to survive for tens of billions of years more we would come to a point where it seems we are alone in space, we would see no other stars, there would be no background radiation. So over time (tending towards infinity) our universe will be an error in existence, something that exists, but is inert, there is no perpetual cycle, no equilibrium. This I find is highly inelegant.

The answer to your black hole issue is possibly a white hole. I'll let google tell you more but basically all that stuff you're worrying about piling up just pops into existence elsewhere according to at least one theory. These theories tend to suggest that their are multiple universes/dimensions and many/all of them are connected somehow(Not mainstream science as far as I know). Some people have even thrown string theory into the equation here(Small obscure joke. Get it? :P) . A bit more mainstream tho i don't understand much at all about it.

QuoteIt means that there was no slow accumulation of energy/matter over the aeons of seemingly infinite time".

The theory holds that time, space, mass, and radiation didn't exist before the "big bang". So no time could elapse prior to the event. I wonder vaguely and with little semblance of order if any single universe(birthed from a single singularity event) isn't part of some greater dimensional organization with an infinite number of such universes. This has been said before by people a lot smarter than me. You could then possibly think less about something coming from nothing and more about something moving from somewhere where it was to somewhere where nothing was and now something is. rofl Now I'm dumbing things down to the point that they're just dumb :P but in all seriousness this just moves the age old question elsewhere. where did this shit come from before that? Has it always been and will it always be? Without a constant linear sense of time the last sentence isn't so hard to accept. There would be no beggining and no end, such things being later additions to the system(And still possibly meaningless nonsense dreamed up by selfimportant apes on an insignificant blue speck :P).

Much of what you say assumes theres an order to all of this, as if someone planned it(Kind of clashes with the websites name eh?). Who's to say this all isn't just some highly impropable fluke? Or even that any of this really exists as we percieve it to? i've said for years that reality does not neccessary conform to our expectaions/ability to understand it. It seems more likely that the opposite is true and any absolute truths/laws are beyond our understanding.

The "heat death" you seem to be talking about has always interested me. Once everything drifts about to the extent that no reaction or radiation is possible/likely.

QuoteAs our universe expands it takes up more and more volume within space, it never reaches the limits of space, does this mean coincidentally that it is creating space? I don't think so.

This is exactly what the big bang theory states i believe. That space is being created(The universe expanding). What lies at the edge is a bigger question, one we can't easily wrap our heads around since they insist something must be there(Even if it is nothing/vacuum).

There's no reason the 2-3 universes you mention have to collide. you're thinking in terms of 3 dimensional space. think in terms of 4 or more. If your head dousn't explode, you might decide that these universes could all neatly expand infinitely in 3 dimensional space without risk of contact. Compare this to two infinitely wide and long tables sitting on each other which expand in two dimensions.

QuoteSpace is not like a box, it doesn't have any borders, it is not made of substance (as far as i am aware).

Just noticed this. Books have been written just about this. Again, beyond my limited understanding of the field but space and time are supposedly tangible things. Space/vaccum actually has properties to it that do not exist where tehre is no space.(Lets say for example just past the edge of the universe)

Quote from: Prometheus on July 04, 2012, 10:04:02 AM
Much of what you say assumes theres an order to all of this, as if someone planned it(Kind of clashes with the websites name eh?). Who's to say this all isn't just some highly impropable fluke?

I assume infinity, autonomy, perpetual existence and equilibrium.
I have also assumed infinite three dimensional space. I find it difficult to conceptually think beyond three dimensions, less than three is absurd as you get the problem of infinite density.

So thinking in infinites, if "time" has existed forever then we will have already reached some sort of equilibrium.
I see only three dimensions, so all of existence is confined within our three dimensional space, but space never ends and universes are continually bursting, possibly from massive black holes. So there would be an infinite amount of universes, each occupying a segment of space so it would be possible for them to collide. Maybe they rotate around each other like some multiverse dance. Unlike a galaxy though, they cant have black hole that these universes orbit because that black hole would be too massive and would explode into a universe itself. Overtime exploded universes get swallowed up by black holes which eventually explode into universes. This provides the perpetual autonomy to it.

I know there are problems with this, the problem of how a black hole can explode when not even light can escape, but the big bang theory has an inflationary period where energy is traveling faster than the speed of light, maybe this is possible when the energy inside a black hole becomes strong enough to break particles right down. If space doesn't exist beyond a universe then this would also be a problem, and also the concept of time is a problem. But hey...

Quote from: Prometheus on July 04, 2012, 10:04:02 AM
Or even that any of this really exists as we percieve it to? i've said for years that reality does not neccessary conform to our expectaions/ability to understand it.

Thus the problem when trying to explain anything beyond the scope of our universe. We can't take actual measurements or observations beyond our own universe. Thus we can only theorise. If the truth is something that we cant percieve then we will never know the truth. But it is fun to think about what can possibly be thought of, even if all our thoughts currently have problems. :-)

Seems like they may have discovered the Higgs Boson, some new cool theories will come soon.

The vacuum of space continuosly churns out ghost-particles, which upon collision, form elementary particles. These particles exert atractive force, while empty space exerts repulsive force. Particles ablee to overcome inverse pull clump together and form galaxies. Particles that can't clump with the particles they can, and the galaxies continuously seperate. Run the clock in reverse and you get an infinite amout of contraction with no end. In forward: infinite expansion without any need for a singularity without time, or inflation.

Do you have a source for this. I think that I might want a closer look at this.

How would you explain the microwave background then if there was no inflation? And the fact that it also predicts and fits where galaxies have clumped together due to concentrations in mass and gravity?

Inflation isn't all that weird, the singularity is.

My head just exploded. I had thought that I was at least somewhat conversant with this area of physics. While I was not fond of dark energy and matter at least they did not blow my mental circuit breakers. When the for dummies version of this is published I will take another look at this.

Ok  I think that I have found another post on the subject.

Quote from: markmcdaniel on July 14, 2012, 05:17:34 AM
Do you have a source for this. I think that I might want a closer look at this.

No. tis but a pet theory. Though I hope in time it will turn out to be correct.