[andreasva]

Please expand on your above answers

What I'm suggesting is an idea that no one really likes as near as I can tell, yet, with everything I've contemplated over the past 30+ years, it's the only answer that makes sense to me logically.  I'll explain it, but understand it is not conventional, and probably considered ridiculous in some peoples eyes.  I could also be horribly wrong.  I don't know, but it makes logical sense to me.

When I look at space from the standpoint of an infinite void, I have to question the entire notion of the way we view the entropy of the universe.  Where is a condense point of energy going to exist in a void before our understanding of space and time existed?  It would have no preference to any particular scale.  The void would have no properties that would allow anything to "condense" within it either.  It could scale up or down, and that would be about it.  Only the presence of energy allows energy to exist in different states, condensed or otherwise.  A condensed point of energy in a void is an impossibility.  How could something like this explode into a big bang within a void?  It wouldn't, in my opinion.  It would just keep on condensing eternally, because nothing could ever act upon it to stop it from condensing.  The possibility of a universe existing without energy to act upon it becomes nonsensical in my view.

I think you have to reverse the entire process, and consider the possibility that our universe came into existence from the opposite end of the spectrum as which we currently perceive.  It was created all at once from the maximum scale it would ever be.  We are not expanding, we are falling into the void of space.  Our universe's beginning was formed from dimensional collapse, much like I'm suggesting in a quantum fluctuation, and we are still collapsing at a constant rate.  All the galaxies we view are pretty much where they were when this all began, aside from incidental local motion due to gravitational effects.  The space that we contemplate in physics today is unbound energy.  Mass is bound energy.  They are inherently different, but equal and opposite in physical properties.

For a lack of a better word, matter is collapsing inwards at a constant rate, probably defined at C.  The distance gained between distant galaxies over time is derived from a scaling effect.  I'm also guessing that the rate of collapse follows inverse square laws, so the rate of collapse was different the further back in time you go.  I'm also guessing the the energy density in the unbound energy of space increases over time.     

This would most closely be equatable to a zero energy or sum universe.

I don't know how any of this can be proven, or verified.  It would basically fit all of the exact same observations and theories we have already assigned to inflation or expansion, because it is the inverse state of what we think is going on now.  The real issue is obtaining proof.  Everything we use to detect the universe is based on energy.  Energy can only be used to detect other energies.  If all energy is collapsing at the exact same rate, it would all appear static when compared to other energy.  We would view upper and lower limits at any given point in time, and these limits wouldn't change over time, even though everything was changing over time.  Everything would check.  We're bound to a perspective which could contradict the reality of what's actually happening.   

As I've said before, physics see's all these elements of physics as static, because they are predictable.  A hydrogen atom is about x in size, with an energy of y.  They always remain about the same when we compare them to other elements.  If the entire universe were falling into a void, how would we know?

I just think all this stuff has to be headed in a direction.  The energy has to be put to work to be experienced.  The idea that everything was created 13.8 billion years ago and has just been hanging out in a somewhat unchanged state, seems unlikely to me.  We are not going to fly apart at the speed of light due to our perspective of acceleration.  We aren't accelerating or expanding anywhere in the conventional sense.  At best, we'll simply blip out of existence some day, and the whole process will start anew. 

Removing the concept of "space" from physics is really simple, honestly. 

space-time time-energy

Does that have any impact on any of the formula's in physics?  Of course not.  That minor little change only changes our perspective of the universe, but it doesn't change what we've already accepted as mathematical truths in physics. 

My 2 cents on the universe... 

[andreasva]

When you state dimensional collapse, how do you view those dimensions? Space + time + something else? perhaps

energy + time.   I see our universe as a sealed biosphere more or less.  It's a hard defined physical dimensional state with an outer wall, similar to an atom.  I think it's also important understand what the "collapsing" state represents.  I think it's more closely related to simple motion.  Matter travels inwards, so it's not really collapsing in the literal sense of the word.  In a true 3-dimensional state we can move 3-dimensionally.  This includes inward and outward motion in addition to the more commonly understood linear motion that we easily perceive.  As long as we maintain coherence in motion relative to other matter, we perceive all matter as static relative to 0 as a base state.  I think matter is more like an inverted wave traveling inward.  I consider light moves along a tangent to inward motion, possessing both inward and outward properties of motion simultaneously.  It's propelled by a constant state of collapse, much like pressing your hand against a bouncing ball, but with no bottom limit.  That's where the particle wave duality comes into play.  It is physically both states at once.

Space has no definable physical dimensions, because space is infinite, so it's not really a part of our physical dimension.  We exist within space in the form of energy.  Energy is what defines the physical structure and substance of the space we perceive, and time defines the entropy of this energy.           

[andreasva]

I think science boxed themselves into this concept of a unified space-time set.  In doing so, science tends to limit space in finite terms.  Logically, there's no reason to assume this void of space has any end to it.  This infinite void of space would exist with or without our presence, in my opinion.  The notion that our universe created space in a space-time set is somewhat narrow minded or naive, in my opinion.  We bound an observable and testable element of physics, time, to an un-observable and un-testable element of physics, space.  Time was certainly proven as a malleable ingredient in our makeup, but space?  Not so much.  Proving the existence of time does not prove the presence of space as a space-time set.  All observations would actually lead one to suspect energy is what's bound to time, not space.  For instance, time dilation in a gravity well.  Gravity represents an energy state.  Motion also represents an energy change, which alters time.  Energy is the more logical element in our altered perspective of time, not space.   

[guest45734]

You bring out some interesting points, on your posts above.

Sticking with the current laws of physics, energy can not be created or destroyed. This would imply that the zero energy universe concept must be going in the correct direction (+E) + (-E) = 0. You point out that the entropy of the universe is increasing. Quantum fluctuations in space with exactly opposite characteristics may cancel out out leaving a zero energy increase situation, but what would happen if the quantum fluctuations were on occasion separated preventing a cancellation the entropy of space would increase.

To try and define the universe as finite, is a nonsense, To know what is over the edge of the expanding visible universe is something we may never know, and so can be defined as infinite ie an unattainable thing. Space as just a volume is also a nonsense, in any vacuum it is full of quantum fluctuations (see Casimir effect for proof). Absolute zero can never be reached because of these quantum fluctuations, space does not exist without them. The concept of spacial dimensions is from relativity 4D space and time.

I have to go

[andreasva]

You point out that the entropy of the universe is increasing.

Mass-energy and time-energy (aka space-time) is the same energy, but existing in different states, in my view.  As mass-energy density falls(entropy -), time-energy density rises(entropy+).   The falling energy density in mass (relative to the overall universe)  is seen in the separation of galaxies, and the increase in time-energy density (relative to matter) is seen in the distance gained between galaxies.  That's what I suspect anyway.  Overall the sum of our entire universe is collapsing or falling inward.  And as I suggest above, light and matter are both traveling at C.  Linear motion is outward motion, and when a body is at rest, it is traveling in an inward motion.  No motion, no energy.  It's the constant motion of everything that allows a universe to exist.  Energy at work.   

[andreasva]

but what would happen if the quantum fluctuations were on occasion separated preventing a cancellation the entropy of space would increase.

Had a thought on this, which could make sense.  I suggested that the process is following inverse square laws.  In the early universe, I suspect matter dominated every point in space.  It quickly receded inward giving rise to time-energy between the gaps.  It would make sense that number of QF's would also rise with the rise of time-energy, possibly slowing the process down over time as time-energy density increased.   I think what would be more important would be the ratio between successful QF's and unsuccessful QF's.         

[andreasva]

To try and define the universe as finite, is a nonsense,

Yes, I agree, but I also think a clearer definition of infinite and finite is in order.  Space, energy, and time are infinite.  There's no doubt in my mind.  What is finite is states of energy.  Anything that has a beginning cannot be defined as infinite.  Our universe, which is made of energy, had a beginning, and could be viewed as a state of energy, therefore, our universe, or our perception of our universe, is finite.  Life is finite.  Matter is finite.  Gravity is finite.  Light is finite.  I think most importantly though, our perspective of the universe is finite. Infinity implies a dimensionless state with no definable beginning or end.  Because all the elements in our universe are dependent upon one another to exist, all of these states of energy had a beginning, and will eventually come to an end.  Even light, which is considered infinite, cannot last forever, because the universe will not last forever.  That does not rule out the possibility that our universe will undergo a reset of sorts.  But, everything that we observe and experience now, will eventually come to an end.  That end might mark the beginning.  Beyond our perspective of the universe, of course there's more.  Infinity is a pretty damn big place.  So, if we're talking about an all inclusive universe including things beyond our "perceived" universe, I agree, defining the sum total of everything as finite is total nonsense.  We're an infinitesimal cog in a much larger machine.   

[guest45734]

Mass-energy and time-energy (aka space-time) is the same energy, but existing in different states, in my view.  As mass-energy density falls(entropy -), time-energy density rises(entropy+). 

2nd law of thermodynmics entropy always increases, (except in a couple of exceptions)
https://www.quora.com/The-entropy-is-increasing-but-the-energy-of-the-universe-is-constant-How

I suggested that the process is following inverse square laws.

Yep that is inline with newtons laws.

In the early universe, I suspect matter dominated every point in space.

Nope Even the big bang theory stipulates the early universe was quantum fluctuations matter did not come into existence until the universe was expanding. However I tend to lean towards a zero energy universe as I indicated above, which does not preclude one or several Big Bangs. 

Quote from: disinterested on Today at 07:25:09
To try and define the universe as finite, is a nonsense,

Yes, I agree, but I also think a clearer definition of infinite and finite is in order.  Space, energy, and time are infinite.  There's no doubt in my mind.  What is finite is states of energy.  Anything that has a beginning cannot be defined as infinite.  Our universe, which is made of energy, had a beginning, and could be viewed as a state of energy, therefore, our universe, or our perception of our universe, is finite.  Life is finite.  Matter is finite.  Gravity is finite.  Light is finite. I think most importantly though, our perspective of the universe is finite. Infinity implies a dimensionless state with no definable beginning or end.  Because all the elements in our universe are dependent upon one another to exist, all of these states of energy had a beginning, and will eventually come to an end.  Even light, which is considered infinite, cannot last forever, because the universe will not last forever.  That does not rule out the possibility that our universe will undergo a reset of sorts.  But, everything that we observe and experience now, will eventually come to an end.  That end might mark the beginning.  Beyond our perspective of the universe, of course there's more.  Infinity is a pretty damn big place.  So, if we're talking about an all inclusive universe including things beyond our "perceived" universe, I agree, defining the sum total of everything as finite is total nonsense.  We're an infinitesimal cog in a much larger machine.   

You are not being consistent either the universe is infinite or finite, we can never observe the limit, therefore it is arguably infinite. What limit would you state as the finite measurable limit, then what do have beyond that.
 Quantum loop gravity allows for repeated big bangs and big crunches.

Light does not experience time or distance, from a photons perspective time and space do not exist. Also energy can not be created or destroyed it just changes form.

Being part of a cog in a much bigger machine, I want to understand exactly what space is. Looking at vacuum energy reinforces some of what I have been trying to discuss here is one link on the subject https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_vacuum_energy_really_exist there are many much better.


Colin suggested superfluids would be good to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory does anyone have an opinion on space as a superfluid.

[andreasva]

Nope Even the big bang theory stipulates the early universe was quantum fluctuations matter did not come into existence until the universe was expanding.

I'm starting at maximum expansion or scale.  Energy collapsed inward to form the universe.  What it looked like, I don't know for sure.  I've contemplated the beginning of the universe based on a potential end to our universe.  One single black hole representing all the mass energy in the entire universe, surround by time-energy.  That's the end, and the beginning of the next cycle. 

 

However I tend to lean towards a zero energy universe as I indicated above, which does not preclude one or several Big Bangs.

I lean the same way.  I also consider the possibility that our universe perpetually repeats itself. 

You are not being consistent either the universe is infinite or finite, we can never observe the limit, therefore it is arguably infinite. What limit would you state as the finite measurable limit, then what do have beyond that.

Honestly, I think we could possibly be a quantum fluctuation within another greater universe, and so on and so on.  Not clear to me however.  Just a curious thought. 

We do observe a pretty clear beginning.  I think that's pretty undeniable, although arguable to some I suppose.  As long as we can determine we had a beginning with reasonable certainty, our universe is finite by default in my view.  That's my rational behind the statement.  Anything that has a beginning is finite, regardless of whether or not we can see the edge of the universe.  So yes, arguably so. 

 

Light does not experience time or distance, from a photons perspective time and space do not exist. Also energy can not be created or destroyed it just changes form.

It's not clear to me what a photon experiences from its perspective.  Stopped time doesn't necessarily imply 0 time, and I'm not sure what that says about distance.  Not sure I really feel like getting into time discussions though.  I'm not implying energy is being destroyed by any means.  Quite the opposite. 

I want to understand exactly what space is.

I've spent too long thinking about space.  Strip out all the energy in your mind, and what's left is raw space.  What do you see?  I see an infinite dimensionless void.  A contradiction of scale, where space is as infinitely vast looking outward, as it is looking inward.  I see the possibility of motion.  We exist somewhere between this contradiction of scale.  That's what I keep coming back to. 

[guest45734]

Quote from: disinterested on Yesterday at 18:03:38
Nope Even the big bang theory stipulates the early universe was quantum fluctuations matter did not come into existence until the universe was expanding.

I'm starting at maximum expansion or scale.  Energy collapsed inward to form the universe.  What it looked like, I don't know for sure.  I've contemplated the beginning of the universe based on a potential end to our universe.  One single black hole representing all the mass energy in the entire universe, surround by time-energy.  That's the end, and the beginning of the next cycle. 

 
Quote from: disinterested on Yesterday at 18:03:38
However I tend to lean towards a zero energy universe as I indicated above, which does not preclude one or several Big Bangs.

I lean the same way.  I also consider the possibility that our universe perpetually repeats itself. 

You appear to be hinting at Quantum loop gravity, do you adhere to this theory/idea.

To try and keep things really simple if we look at space. Zooming out space has volume which extends to infinity as far as we will ever know. Space can be distorted according to relativity.  Zooming in it has a grainy structure and is it is full of quantum fluctuations  and matter. Under String theory space has a membrane with more than just the 3 Spacial and one time dimension we are familiar. The holographic principle projects 3D space onto a 2 Dimensional membrane.

I posted this early but it was moved, If space has a membrane which has surface tension, the membrane of space time can take on many fundamental shapes such as waves, corpuscles, menisci, vortices, agglomerates, and foams. It is suggested that these basic shapes can be arranged in atoms, molecules, and matter. In other words, everything in the universe may be manufactured from the fabric/membrane of space time itself. Matter and energy are connected in a virtual membrane at the interface of observed time.
The observed time passing is affected  in a gravitational field or under acceleration. This may may be due to quantum foam effects/dark energy effects both of which are a result of quantum fluctuations in the membrane of space.

Trying to be philosophical, and buy into your infinte and finite space concepts could a dimension exist in the membrane of space that has the potential to connect all points in space. This is possibly in la la land, but it is worth considering. Another way of considering this is that for a photon or particle travelling in 3D space, space does not exist so all photons would exist in the same space and could maybe again be connected directly when they are entangled, until they decohere.

[guest45734]

Regarding extra dimensions this is interesting to peasants like me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_extra_dimension

Ref Hawking radiation and matter appearing out of quantum fluctuations something that caught my eye from the following link was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon

Quantum Blackholes also exist could they also produce matter UMMMM? https://newatlas.com/quantum-black-holes-singularity/29242/

[opportunity]

A lot of what was erased earlier I agree with being erased.

The problem with the dialogue of that erased material is that someone said space existed separate to "time".

Think of this: can time exist without space?

Steady on that thought.

Now try this......"can space exist without time"?

The problem with the erased material was the argument that space could exist beyond time, beyond the hypothetical big bang, as though it was, space, already present before the big bang.

The conundrum in that argument was the idea if "those" who believe both space and time didn't exist before the big bang, then why would we attempt "small-scale" big-bang experiments in a lab if indeed the a-priori of a big bang states that nothing exists beyond, "beyond" "outside", any notion of a big-bang.

Think of it this way, if science is serious about conducting experiments to replicate the big bang in a research lab environment, then clearly time and space already exist outside that big bang event that has yet to happen in that experiment, yet has already happened in theory on a large scale.

I suggested that the experiment was doomed to fail based on all modelling because all modelling states nothing existed before the large scale "big bang" event.

So, "what is space? It's a tough question. If it is tied in with time, then "time" as a descriptor needs to be included in the description of space.

[guest45734]

So, "what is space? It's a tough question. If it is tied in with time, then "time" as a descriptor needs to be included in the description of space.

I have no problem with space time, I just think there is more to space time than just the basic 4 dimensions.

I have been taking a double take on Hawking radiation. A analogue to a black hole has been created in the lab demonstrating Hawking radiation might in fact be proven to exist at least in principle https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.00621.pdf

One of the things that had escaped my gaze ref Hawking radiation is that the particles escaping a black hole are entangled with those inside the black hole.

How can information be transferred out of a Black hole and still be entangled with a particle inside a BH? Wormholes within wormholes? An additional membrane which everything exists on without  space or time? Do any clever people have some insight.

Space can not exist without quantum fluctuations. Can quantum fluctuations exist in a black hole ie do black holes absorb space time. If Quantum fluctuations can be prevented from coming into existence in an volume of space would you have a black hole?

[opportunity]

Hey.....don't forget trying to replicate the Big Bang in a lab when nothing in theory existed before the big bang 

[guest45734]

Hey.....don't forget trying to replicate the Big Bang in a lab when nothing in theory existed before the big bang 

I have created many Big Bangs in the lab. Mostly by pushing the edges of what semiconductors can do

However you might not have noticed that whilst I am aware of Big Bang theory I do not accept any big bang as the beginning of the universe. Big Bangs from Super Novas produce most of the heavier elements. If a Black Hole was to explode it might produce a few heavier elements also, I suspect that it would be mainly radiation. The reason I state this is that the laws of thermodynamics must apply inside a black hole. That means as pressure increases so does temperature, which in turn causes  the breakdown of all matter inside a black hole into radiation. To guess what happens next just check out the Big Bang.

The thread is about what space is. I mentioned Black holes and Hawking radiation because one is an extreme case of gravity which to my mind disproves the existence of the graviton as the source of gravity. Gravity is caused by mass/energy inside the blackhole, the theoretical graviton is a boson, which would need to leave the centre of a BH and escape to the event horizon, bosons cant do that. Gravity is caused by the absorption of space which only exists due to quantum fluctuations. Hawking radiation not only gives a possible way the early matter in the universe was created from Quantum fluctuations, but also through the entanglement of particles at both sides of the event horizon, of a BH some insight into what space is.

I have a half baked idea that an additional dimension exists which particles(bosons and maybe fermions) can exist in like a singularity connecting all points in space. String theory suggests many more dimensions exist so me just thinking of one extra dimension is no biggy. Wave particle duality might suggest that waves exist in this additional dimension but manifest themselves as particles in space time dimension. Hey Ho . I will head off and read up on QFT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
 

[opportunity]

Hey, "big bang stuff"....nothing existed before that, right?

And now we want to do new "big bang stuff"?

In a lab?

Like we exist as a future in a lab before all this possible new big bang stuff we're trying to create?

echo....echo.............echo....................echo..............................

How can you start a conversation saying you've reproduced the big bang already.....already.........already...................already........................................already......................................... .....

Right?

[Colin2B]

[Wave particle duality might suggest that waves exist in this additional dimension but manifest themselves as particles in space time dimension. Hey Ho .

I might have thought the opposite.
Waves certainly exist in the 4d world we seem to exist in, but I’ve always viewed the particle side as an effect/property due to the ability of the wave/field being able to transfer energy in the form of momentum.
Are there any other ways the extra dimensions might show up?

[guest45734]

I might have thought the opposite.
Waves certainly exist in the 4d world we seem to exist in, but I’ve always viewed the particle side as an effect/property due to the ability of the wave/field being able to transfer energy in the form of momentum.
Are there any other ways the extra dimensions might show up?

Why not assume another dimension/membrane exists which connects all points in space time. Non Locality suggests this is probable. Hawking radiation if it exists suggests this also. It is OK to state spooky action at a distance and offer no explanation. Why not state the obvious, particles can connect via another dimension and act as one, without passing information through space time.   

QLG suggests a Big Bang was not the start of the universe and all matter. Hawking radiation demonstrates a way matter can appear from the vacuum at the event horizon of a Black Hole. This allows BH's to evaporate over time, what happens to a BH when its mass drops below about 3 solar masses. BH's during their life time most likely turn any matter it sucked in to it, into radiation, the BB started with radiation and a explosion. Super Novaes explode at lower masses at around 1.44 solar masses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova. Smaller BH's give off more xrays from?? their accretion disc than bigger black holes ie they lose energy and mass faster.

Does anyone have a really good link or book/pdf on Quantum Electrodynamics. I googled it to death yesterday and would like to understand it better.

Edit I stumbled onto this link Hawking radiation is not produced at the black hole horizon. http://backreaction.blogspot.co.za/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html
It may be correct, for every argument some one will develop a counter argument. 

[Colin2B]

I suppose it depends what you see as ‘obvious’. I don’t yet see enough evidence for non-locality.

Feynman did a popular book on qed which will be on amazon. Depends what level you want to start at.

[guest45734]

I don’t yet see enough evidence for non-locality.

Feynman did a popular book on qed which will be on amazon. Depends what level you want to start at.

I guess it depends on how much evidence you need for non locality, the jury is still out.

All things Feynman are worth reading.

I did find some links to pdfs FOC on arxiv for QFT Sting Theory on QLG
Others might like a read it depends on the level you want to go to, some of these linkss are quite heavy.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9912205.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9905111.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.4188.pdf

These links will keep me quite for a while. Does anyone have something on QED

Edit found this written by Feynman https://ia800503.us.archive.org/11/items/ost-physics-feynman-quantumelectrodynamics/Feynman-QuantumElectrodynamics.pdf