Mordred

I agree with you science does study awareness it does study how we perceive the universe. However this does not change the detail that your missing Physics "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions" this is the physics section on this forum as such is discussions are as above, Shamanism Shamanism (/ˈʃɑːmən/ SHAH-mən or /ˈʃeɪmən/ SHAY-mən) is a practice that involves a practitioner reaching altered states of consciousness in order to encounter and interact with the spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world. regardless of how you try to justify it your arguments are based upon a belief system, and is not a physics argument science:the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The point is, this is a science forum. It is not the place to discuss religion or cultural view points. However go ahead and believe in whatever cultural view points you desire. This forum does have a philosophy section, this thread would be more appropriate there

Really which theories are you referring to exactly,as I seriously doubt you have studied every scientific theory, and what does religion have to do with science?

surface temperature is 165 K which is is roughly -108 degrees Celsius http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html

The question isn't really definable in the terms of energy released, the term big bang is somewhat a misnomer. First off its not an explosion, its a rapid expansion of the universe. If you take the total energy of the universe today and remove expansion and inflation, then this would represent the total energy at 10-43 seconds. Prior to this time our physics breaks down, so we term this period of time a singularity. However there is also two schools of thought on this aspect. In this school of thought the energy at 10-43 sec is roughly 10-69 joules. In the other school of thought often referred to as the zero point energy universe, there is positive energy and negative energy, matter and gravity being positive and the vacuum being negative. So in this school the energy density would be zero+the Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. In this model the total energy balance is always zero with the quantum fluctuations of the Uncertainty principle. (however this model fell out of disfavor as its results lead to an error of the order of 120 magnitudes) So either this model is invalid or there is an unknown mechanism to dampen the amount of vacuum energy produced. then of course the problem comes into play does the universe obey the conservation laws of energy. [latex]e=\frac{hv}{2}[/latex] there is still some open ended questions involved, so much of what we feel we know prior to inflation is due to our knowledge of particle physics, the ideal gas laws, and which cosmological model best describes observations. As we cannot observe anything prior to the dark ages to directly see the big bang itself, our knowledge is speculative, with our current physics knowledge as supportive evidence. here is a decent article discussing what I just described "Does the universe obey the energy conservation law by a constant mass or an increasing mass with radius during its evolution?" http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.1629.pdf Loop quantum gravity where the universe is the result of a bounce from another universe, would have roughly the same value I posted above (its not mentioned in the article) 1069 joules. even though the zero energy universe is of disfavor I'll add a related article as nothing is certain with regards to BB "Preludes to dark energy:Zero-point energy and vacuum speculations" http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.4623.pdf On the zero energy universe http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf the last paper discusses several problems with the zero energy universe, one of them being that the metrics only work reliably in the flat universe case without special localized treatments to describe curvature (limited to cartesian coordinates, the use of pseudo tensors is a workaround) so the only accurate answer is we don't know with certainty, the answer would depend on which model

Actually Jupiter is generally thought to already have a core, though there is some debate on this,or rather there is some debate on the Cores composition. The surface temperature is low enough to freeze water. The first link has some good information the debate is discussed in the second article,(though technical) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0403393v1.pdf

The more I think about this way of looking at it, the more I like it lol, as a side note textbooks place that scale at roughly 100 Mpc (mega parsecs) however there have been papers that have recommended that value be raised to roughly 130 Mpc, due the the Sloan wall etc.

large scale structure, atomic level, subatomic level, molecular level, are all terms that describe a particular system being examined so in that sense it not really a case of being set at a known size large scale structures is a term used to describe galaxy clusters, galaxy clusters and galaxies are considered gravitationally bound systems. Atomic level is a term used to describe the states within an individual atom subatomic level is used to describe individual particles molecular level is used to describe various molecules the size range can vary depending on the complexity of the system being examined for instance in the case of large scale structures, the Sloan great wall measures roughly 1.38 billion light years in length, however it is a gravitionally bound system and therefore is considered a large scale structure. in terms of the cosmological constant and expansion you have to examine the energy-densities at the appropriate units of separation distance. The energy-density is the key. For large scale structures the average energy-density of gravity is greater than the energy-density of the cosmological constant so gravity wins and no expansion occurs in that gravitationally bound region. Gravity being the weakest of the 4 forces, means that the cosmological constant is far less likely to affect atoms or molecules

This particular model of universe inside a black hole I am familiar with I spent some time studying his model. Including some professional peer reviews of the problems associated against the model as being viable. Poplowskii's spin and torsion model (universe inside a blackhole/whitehole) suffers primarily in how it deals with the early large scale structure formation if I recall correctly. Unfortunately I can't find the paper on that (I tried finding it on one of my earlier replies) here is some of the other reasons, Ones I didn't mention here is that Popowskii's model is a rotating universe and even an extremely slow rotation cannot homogeneous and isotropic. To the best of our measurements our universe shows no indication of a rotation. (a rotation would mean a preferred direction and location (center of rotation). However he does continually try to address the problems in his model, and its been a while since I last looked at it. He may or may not have solutions to those problems I mentioned. I do know from extensive reading of cosmology papers that the universe as a result of a BH is not commonly accepted. Science is wonderful that way (until a model is proven wrong and is viable, then any any viable model is considered possible) overall though the difficulty of explaining how a universe resulting from a BH is extremely challenging, in regards to our universe not having a preferred location and direction. Our universe is extremely homogeneous and isotropic (Poplowskii's earlier papers didn't sufficiently cover this problem, no idea if his later works does)(I should note some of the metrics in his papers is good learning, he makes use of the Godel universe metrics and its a good example) http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0106/0106070.pdf (keep in mind the Godel universe is simply a model, models like this are sometimes referred to as toy universes,)

Not to the best of our knowledge, The energy-density of the cosmological constant is extremely low, to the point of being nearly immeasurable unless you measure it over an extremely large distance. Per cubic meter its energy-density is easily overpowered by the strong nuclear force and gravity. Its influence is primarily in the regions between large scale structures and is not known to cause any measurable influence in any gravitationally bound region. Nor is it known to cause any influence at the atom level.

cool vid thanks for sharing

I'm not sure where you read we can detect microwaves from the BB, considering we cannot directly view the BB due to the dark ages. The dark ages is the time when the mean free path is too short for photons to avoid interaction prior to reaching us. Secondly any microwave from the BB would be red shifted to the point of being undetectable. However lets assume your talking the CMB. I'm not clear on how you think that light traveling from point A to point B means that space itself has substance, that was once considered by the Ether/Aether theories. (Ether theories have been proved wrong, although nothing in physics is completely proven wrong so proposals will crop up from time to time) We can only measure interactions as they affect particles. You cannot measure the interaction of a void per se. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories Assuming your using the definition of void as "a completely empty space" If something is completely empty (has no energy, or matter) not that energy can exist by itself. At least not in physics. Then there is nothing for a photon to interact with. How would a photon interact with something that has no substance? How would it influence nothing? Energy does not exist on its own that's one of the first things they teach physics students all forces are mediates via a force carrier. Although in the case of gravity we haven't found the force carrier (graviton) but that doesn't preclude the possibility that it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't been able to produce a high enough of a temperature reaction to create a graviton. "In particle physics, quantum field theories such as the Standard Model describe nature in terms of fields. Each field has a complementary description as the set of particles of a particular type. A force between two particles can be described either as the action of a force field generated by one particle on the other, or in terms of the exchange of virtual force carrier particles between them. The energy of a wave in a field (for example, electromagnetic waves in the electromagnetic field) is quantized, and the quantum excitations of the field can be interpreted as particles. The Standard Model contains the following particles, each of which is an excitation of a particular field: Gluons, excitations of the strong gauge field. Photons, W bosons, and Z bosons, excitations of the electroweak gauge fields. (electro-weak field is the combination of electromagnetic force and the weak force) Higgs bosons, excitations of one component of the Higgs field, which gives mass to fundamental particles. Several types of fermions, described as excitations of fermionic fields. In addition, composite particles such as mesons can be described as excitations of an effective field." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier Now with everything I just stated above there is research ongoing to define the energy levels inherent in empty space as per se. Now to explain this with more clarity we need to look at a particular term. Zero point energy. Classical physics would state that zero point energy would be zero. However this isn't true in quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics the zero point energy due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is [latex]e=\frac{hv}{2}[/latex] however as mentioned already this is essentially virtual particles popping in and out of existence Casimer effect is one such study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect so fundamentally how you define space must work at all the applicable scales of measure. There is the space between particles and there is outer space for example. I just showed that interactions is essentially particle to particle and explained that a particle must interact with another particle (cannot interact with nothing, that makes no sense) so the only definition of space that applies at all levels of science and size scale is just a separation distance or volume.

no problem anytime

there is no competition the term force isn't restricted to just the 4 forces, you can also have force exerted by inertia, or force exerted by pressure. None of the latter 2 examples need to explain the cause of the force. How you define force depends on the system your examining "In physics, a force is any external effort that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or a flexible object to deform, or both. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

Just for clarity Hubble's law isn't the only reason we know space is expanding, We can also infer that the volume of space has increased due to the thermodynamic history of the universe. In and expanding universe, temperatures and energy-densities lower we know from measurements this is also true.

good answer, couldn't have said it better myself The answer of why the body remains stationary when in free fall is rather complex in terms of GR, here is a quote from Lecture notes in General relativity by Mathius Blau. The article itself would do a far better job of it than I possibly ever could. I'm lousy at explaining GR related questions, so I would make too many mistakes at it. page 76 (the article itself is an excellent resource, I refer to it all the time) http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau "How does this viewpoint of general relativity that there is no such thing as gravitational force square with the well known "fact" that there is a gravitational force field at the surface of the Earth of 980 cm s-Z? Recall that in the standard Newtonian viewpoint this gravitational force on an object placed on the Earth's surface is balanced by the force the surface exerts, leaving the body in equilibrium,i.e., "at rest." In the viewpoint of general relativity, the only force acting on the body is the force of the surface of the Earth. On account of this force, the body accelerates(i.e., deviates from geodesic motion) at the rate of 980 cm s-2. Nevertheless, it remains in a stationary state, because in the curved spacetime geometry in the vicinity of the Earth, the orbits of time translation symmetry differ from the geodesics of the metric." However as mentioned in the previous post there is no answer "to what is it really"

the table exerts an equal force upon the cup as the downward force so the net force is zero.

Alright you have the Lorentz force equation here, now you want to calculate B the equation for B is on page 10 magnetic dipole, However there is different equations for B depending on the various factors in this article. So your going to have to define your problem with a lot more clarity http://www.ece.msstate.edu/~donohoe/ece3313notes8.pdf I still have no idea what the relation is to planets considering the motion of planets has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

evidently my guess is off lol

Judging from what I've read so far and I could be off on this he is looking for the dipole to dipole interactions of 2 charged particles. Might help if the OP can clarify which interaction specifically he is trying to define. probably not the best article but it has some of the basics http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/Atomic_Theory/Intermolecular_Forces/Dipole-Dipole_Interactions problem is I'm not sure if he is looking for it in the more classical mathematics vs the QED metrics. His reference to Coulombs law makes me think he is looking for the former

that I agree with. As long as we all agree the only aspects space itself has is volume and distance, the space-time itself as long as were clear it also does not refer to a fabric or substance then its usage to describe relations is agreeable. A term that may be handy to describe space including all its contents such as the various particles etc, is Intergalactic medium, or outside of large scale structure formation extra galactic medium. IGM for short. Its a nice science term to describe the totality of all the plasma etc that reside in space. the article below is a sample of its usage, highly technical though one of my favorites The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3358

Inflation is a good area of research, One of the professors I know from another forum (though not personally) is also researching inflation here is his papers http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Brian+Powell/0/1/0/all/0/1 he has given me permission to place one of his articles on my website see signature http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell (written for laymen hehe, he got tired of the same questions on the other forum lol) you should also have a copy of this if you haven't already, they regularly test various inflation models its 365 pages long so use it as a reference Encyclopaedia Inflationaris http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 "ASPIC already has 74 different inflationary scenarios, a number that should be compared to the three or four models that are usually consi dered. The ASPIC library is an open source evolutive project and, although it already contains all the most popular inflationary scenarios, aims at including more models"

How the universe expands or contracts depends on how the contents of the universe influence each other in terms of pressure. matter, radiation, exerts positive pressure, the cosmological constant exerts negative pressure. The relations is determined by their energy-density to pressure equation of state. The Universe is treated as a perfect fluid or ideal gas in terms of most metrics such as the FLRW metric. As such it follows all the ideal gas laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 this is also used to determine the universes geometry. You can find more detail in this article. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 covering distance measurements due to geometry http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ now our universe is extremely close to flat, but the question of if our universe is open or closed (infinite or finite is still an open question.) If the universe has a total positive pressure then the universe would contract, however the cosmological constant is the dominant influence of the universe today so the universe is expanding. your cosmology class will cover this soon enough, though I'm not sure how far your class has covered as of yet. Please also keep in mind that space is simply geometric volume that is filled with the contents of the universe.

The reasons you mentioned is precisely why I like the article, lets just say I'm a very well studied long term amateur. In that I've been studying physics for over 20 years. As well as buying and studying a huge collection of the textbooks, however I've never taken institutional training. Luckily though I do have a few professors in the field that I personally know that help me along. (as well as correct my mistakes lol) they have even had me do some of their exams. My actual stock and trade is an Industrial electronics controls tech. In other words design, program and repair robotics and automated systems. (requires a high degree of mathematics, makes understanding physics easier).. If you ever watched "How its made" I design and repair the equipment that makes those items needless to say cosmology has come a long ways in the past 20 years, I recall arguments on whether the universe was flat,curved etc before LCDM became strong and the WMAP data.(it was funny as people were trying to invent their own shapes and show the metrics for it) The MOND vs quintessence,vs BB,string debates were also amusing. That was when Space.com used to have a forum Another related paper Fred Jegerlehner wrote http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3658 "About the role of the Higgs boson in the evolution of the early universe" related by different author Multifield Dynamics of Higgs Inflation http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8190

You keep wanting to apply some magical attribute to space, space has no energy it has no matter, it has no property other than volume. I'm sorry if you want to believe otherwise but space itself is just volume. That volume is simply filled with everything else if it has no traits of its own then it cannot interact with anything, it is the particles that reside in the volume of space that interacts whether virtual or real