How big is the Universe ?

[Ned]

Hi, how big is the Universe ? 

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, Ned said:

Hi, how big is the Universe ? 

Which one?

[Ned]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Which one?

What do you mean by which one ? The universe is all of space and the contents , there is only one universe I know of . 

[iNow]

I presume you mean the observable universe, which is 93 Billion light years in diameter, as the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown

[Endy0816]

Yeah we're essentially waiting for the light itself to reach us, so can only see out so far.

With spacial expansion though this value is a bit more than c*t might strictly suggest.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Endy0816

[Ned]

51 minutes ago, iNow said:

I presume you mean the observable universe, which is 93 Billion light years in diameter, as the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown

Isn't 93 billion light years just a length between visible sources ? 

You say the spacial size of the entire Universe is unknown , which I think I will have to agree with . Is there any specific math that can describe the unknown size of the Universe ? 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Yeah we're essentially waiting for the light itself to reach us, so can only see out so far.

With spacial expansion though this value is a bit more than c*t might strictly suggest.

What do you mean by spacial expansion ? Do you mean the diameter between visible sources is increasing that expands the measure of space between points or do you mean something else ? 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Ned

[Endy0816]

3 hours ago, Ned said:

Isn't 93 billion light years just a length between visible sources ? 

You say the spacial size of the entire Universe is unknown , which I think I will have to agree with . Is there any specific math that can describe the unknown size of the Universe ? 

 

 

What do you mean by spacial expansion ? Do you mean the diameter between visible sources is increasing that expands the measure of space between points or do you mean something else ? 

Think this explains it better than I can:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/m/Metric_expansion_of_space.htm

My attempt...

Where gravity is really really really weak(well outside any galaxy) you can end up with spacial expansion.

Distance between what could be considered otherwise stationary points on a graph, ends up growing.

Photons of light take longer to reach us from these areas and well have traveled further as a result.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Endy0816

[Ned]

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Think this explains it better than I can:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/m/Metric_expansion_of_space.htm

My attempt...

Where gravity is really really really weak(well outside any galaxy) you can end up with spacial expansion.

Distance between what could be considered otherwise stationary points on a graph, ends up growing.

Photons of light take longer to reach us from these areas and well have traveled further as a result.

I do not know who wrote the link you provided but it is very contradictory and does not seem an accurate account . 

Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" ( spacetime) 

 

From my understanding space-time is any mathematical model that uses the 4 dimensions of xyzt . Space-time having nothing to do with a ''fabric'' ? 

In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing.

Can anyone provide evidence that the underlying space can in anyway change other than hearsay ? 

Can anyone explain why somebody has fabricated a  variation version of expansion without proof that doesn't conform to conventional expansion physics ? 

A Hilbert space or perhaps a Higgs field could expand or grow but I can't see how an underlying  space that isn't matter or energy could do anything . It is my personal opinion that Newton was correct about absolute space and the immovable nature of space but I also think that Einstein was correct too . If we consider that a Hilbert space or a Higgs field in being ''fused'' with space and indistinguishable from space in appearance, then this allows for space-time curvature and expansion . However , it isn't the underlying space that curves or expands but rather instead , it is the substance that is ''fused'' with space . The problem is though , any of the mentioned could be viewed as an aether which we are unable to detect presently ! Additionally in considering any sort of spatial ''fabric'' , we'd have to consider the laws of conservation of space , asking the question does space have the potential to conserve an amount of energy. 

 

 

 

[joigus]

1)

重點是什麼？

2)

Who died cuatro days ago?

You answer those two, then we talk about the universe.

Sorry for turning all Voight-Kampff on you. Indulge me.  

[Ned]

6 hours ago, joigus said:

1)

重點是什麼？

2)

Who died cuatro days ago?

You answer those two, then we talk about the universe.

Sorry for turning all Voight-Kampff on you. Indulge me.  

Arrr man , you think I'm some sort of bot ? 

The point is we haven't a clue how old the Universe is , the same as we don't know how big space is . The point is there is no proof that distance visible sources were once located where the Earth is . Ya know who passed away days ago as do we all , our m'aam will be sadly missed . Ahhh , see I am not a bot ! 

Also , which clown gave me a neg rating , for what ? 

I don't think your reply was in anyway fair to the topic and is disruptive ! 

[joigus]

8 hours ago, Ned said:

It is my personal opinion that Newton was correct about absolute space and the immovable nature of space but I also think that Einstein was correct too .

You do sound like a bot, but thanks for the clarification. How can two incompatible notions of space be both correct?

 

8 hours ago, Ned said:

If we consider that a Hilbert space or a Higgs field in being ''fused'' with space and indistinguishable from space in appearance, then this allows for space-time curvature and expansion .

What appearance? What does a Hilbert space look like? And a Higgs field? Space-time is a background, while the Hilbert space of a particle is the space of all possible states of that particle that take values on that background. How could they be indistinguishable? They're very different things.

8 hours ago, Ned said:

A Hilbert space or perhaps a Higgs field could expand or grow [...]

No. A Hilbert space does not expand. It had better not, as you get probabilities from it. Neither does the Higgs field. It had better not, for good reasons too.

Why do you say these things (and more) that don't make any sense? I'm sorry for trying to test your human nature, but you made very loose connections, and sounded to me like a bot. Also, personal opinions don't play any role in mainstream science.

 

[Endy0816]

11 hours ago, Ned said:

I do not know who wrote the link you provided but it is very contradictory and does not seem an accurate account . 

 

 

From my understanding space-time is any mathematical model that uses the 4 dimensions of xyzt . Space-time having nothing to do with a ''fabric'' ? 

 

 

Can anyone provide evidence that the underlying space can in anyway change other than hearsay ? 

Can anyone explain why somebody has fabricated a  variation version of expansion without proof that doesn't conform to conventional expansion physics ? 

A Hilbert space or perhaps a Higgs field could expand or grow but I can't see how an underlying  space that isn't matter or energy could do anything . It is my personal opinion that Newton was correct about absolute space and the immovable nature of space but I also think that Einstein was correct too . If we consider that a Hilbert space or a Higgs field in being ''fused'' with space and indistinguishable from space in appearance, then this allows for space-time curvature and expansion . However , it isn't the underlying space that curves or expands but rather instead , it is the substance that is ''fused'' with space . The problem is though , any of the mentioned could be viewed as an aether which we are unable to detect presently ! Additionally in considering any sort of spatial ''fabric'' , we'd have to consider the laws of conservation of space , asking the question does space have the potential to conserve an amount of energy.

Newton was wrong about that. Only human.

Our Satellites can require that their clocks be corrected due to a different amount of time passing for them than for us.

It isn't intuitive, but our intuition is impacted by the environment we're used to.

 

Anyways your question was about the size of the Universe. Is there anything else in regards?

[Ned]

8 hours ago, joigus said:

You do sound like a bot, but thanks for the clarification. How can two incompatible notions of space be both correct?

 

What appearance? What does a Hilbert space look like? And a Higgs field? Space-time is a background, while the Hilbert space of a particle is the space of all possible states of that particle that take values on that background. How could they be indistinguishable? They're very different things.

No. A Hilbert space does not expand. It had better not, as you get probabilities from it. Neither does the Higgs field. It had better not, for good reasons too.

Why do you say these things (and more) that don't make any sense? I'm sorry for trying to test your human nature, but you made very loose connections, and sounded to me like a bot. Also, personal opinions don't play any role in mainstream science.

 

I will try to answer your questions with a single diagram . I have made it as complete as I can , note that almost everything in the diagram is present mainstream science . I will explain that all unbounded energy within the paramaters of space-time eventually makes it way to the edge of space-time , where the wave-function collapses and the energy joins the edge of space-time , expanding the measure of what I call a Quantum Mainframe . 

[joigus]

4 hours ago, Ned said:

I will try to answer your questions with a single diagram . I have made it as complete as I can , note that almost everything in the diagram is present mainstream science . I will explain that all unbounded energy within the paramaters of space-time eventually makes it way to the edge of space-time , where the wave-function collapses and the energy joins the edge of space-time , expanding the measure of what I call a Quantum Mainframe . 

I can't make heads or tails of your diagram really. What's eigenstate expansion to you?

[Ned]

52 minutes ago, joigus said:

I can't make heads or tails of your diagram really. What's eigenstate expansion to you?

To me an eigenstate expansion is any systems ability to increase in volume as a cause of internal energy increase that differs from the conserved state . A simple example of this is the expansion of metal when heated ! 

 ΔV∝Δu where V is volume and u is internal energy 

 

 

[joigus]

Eigenstates are fixed references in the Hilbert space. They'd better not change... at all.

I think you mean something else.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Ned said:

I will try to answer your questions with a single diagram . I have made it as complete as I can , note that almost everything in the diagram is present mainstream science . I will explain that all unbounded energy within the paramaters of space-time eventually makes it way to the edge of space-time , where the wave-function collapses and the energy joins the edge of space-time , expanding the measure of what I call a Quantum Mainframe . 

!

Moderator Note

I'm moving this to Speculations, since it now involves a non-mainstream idea. Please support your concepts with evidence and sound reasoning. Your explanation needs to persuade the other members using existing science. 

 

[Ned]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Eigenstates are fixed references in the Hilbert space. They'd better not change... at all.

I think you mean something else.

Yes , the inner ''dot product'' is a fixed reference that would be consistant with a  conserved constant Eigen value . This conserved Eigen value I consider is bounded with space (space and time) . I believe Einstein tried to explain space and time as being''fused'' together , agreeing with what I am saying . 

A volume of ''dot product'' (Hilbert space) could be viewed as a Higgs field , an energy field that occupies all of observable space , a space-time ''fabric'' . 

This ''fabric'' of space would be consistant with Einsteins space-time curvature , the Higgs field  curving relative to flat space . 

The Michael Morley experiment demonstrated that the speed of light was constant in all directions , again this is consistant with a constant Eigen value of space-time . If space-time did not have a constant conserved Eigen value , then all wave-function collapses because the energy would be conserved by space and become bounded with space . 

The Eigenstate fixed reference fluctuates in value as unbounded energy passes through the fixed reference but the Eigen value constant always remains the same ,E0,u0 . Absolute space having a value of E1,u1, in regards to permitivity and permeability . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Ned

[joigus]

15 minutes ago, Ned said:

Yes , the inner ''dot product'' is a fixed reference that would be consistant with a  conserved constant Eigen value . This conserved Eigen value I consider is bounded with space (space and time) . I believe Einstein tried to explain space and time as being''fused'' together , agreeing with what I am saying .  [...]

No, the inner dot product in the Hilbert space is not a fixed reference. It can change with time. It's the eigenstate that doesn't change. "Eigenstate" means "proper state" or "characteristic state" in German. It is a fundamental ingredient of quantum mechanics.

Eigenvalues ("proper values" or "characteristic values") don't change either. Let alone "expand."

The Higgs field has nothing to do with curvature. It's a quantum field defined on a flat space-time introduced to explain mass (rest energy) in the standard model of elementary particles. A field is more like an arrow rotating in an abstract space, and sitting on a geometric space. A quantum field is a similar thing, but jumps up and down between different levels that tell you the number of quanta.

Einstein never knew anything about the Higgs field. Neither did Newton, of course, because both were dead when it was introduced.

Field variables don't have curvature. They're not even "numeric" things. They're non-commuting things.

Eigenstates don't fluctuate, though they are defined up to a global phase (a fixed complex number of length 1.)

Eigenvalues are not conserved quantities in general. E (eigenvalue of the energy operator) corresponds to a conserved quantity in some contexts. X (eigenvalue of the x-position operator in quantum mechanics) never --repeat, never-- does.

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense in the context of standard physics.

[Ned]

40 minutes ago, joigus said:

No, the inner dot product in the Hilbert space is not a fixed reference. It can change with time. It's the eigenstate that doesn't change. "Eigenstate" means "proper state" or "characteristic state" in German. It is a fundamental ingredient of quantum mechanics.

Eigenvalues ("proper values" or "characteristic values") don't change either. Let alone "expand."

The Higgs field has nothing to do with curvature. It's a quantum field defined on a flat space-time introduced to explain mass (rest energy) in the standard model of elementary particles. A field is more like an arrow rotating in an abstract space, and sitting on a geometric space. A quantum field is a similar thing, but jumps up and down between different levels that tell you the number of quanta.

Einstein never knew anything about the Higgs field. Neither did Newton, of course, because both were dead when it was introduced.

Field variables don't have curvature. They're not even "numeric" things. They're non-commuting things.

Eigenstates don't fluctuate, though they are defined up to a global phase (a fixed complex number of length 1.)

Eigenvalues are not conserved quantities in general. E (eigenvalue of the energy operator) corresponds to a conserved quantity in some contexts. X (eigenvalue of the x-position operator in quantum mechanics) never --repeat, never-- does.

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense in the context of standard physics.

What do you mean by fixed ? I mean stationary 

I mentioned earlier that I call my diagram a Quantum Mainframe . A Quantum mainframe is a volume of spatial conserved energy that is relatively stationary (fixed) . The conserved energy bounded to space and having inertia . 

Quote

but you're not making any sense in the context of standard physics.

Simultainety ! Perhaps how I view and interpret standard physics is different than you interpret it . 

Can we start here ? ''A Hilbert space is a vector space equipped with an inner product which defines a distance function for which it is a complete metric space.''

In my diagram I drew a vector x , which is a vector space with an inner product and a distance function . Is my understanding of Hilbert space incorrect ? (x1,x2,....xn)

 

If you can't draw it then you don't understand it ! 

 

45 minutes ago, joigus said:

 

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense in the context of standard physics.

I have broke the diagram into sections for you to understand . We can assume that the Hilbert space is filled with a Higgs field . 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Ned

[studiot]

On 9/12/2022 at 11:53 AM, Ned said:

From my understanding space-time is any mathematical model that uses the 4 dimensions of xyzt . Space-time having nothing to do with a ''fabric'' ? 

Not any model.

Just the model with the Minkowski metric an SR,

 

Metrics associated with GR so not result in space-time.

The difference is that the coefficients in the metric for SR are constants, whereas the coefficients in the GR metrics (several ahve been proposed) are themselves functions of the coordinates.

 

On 9/12/2022 at 11:53 AM, Ned said:

Can anyone provide evidence that the underlying space can in anyway change other than hearsay ? 

Can anyone explain why somebody has fabricated a  variation version of expansion without proof that doesn't conform to conventional expansion physics ? 

A Hilbert space or perhaps a Higgs field could expand or grow but I can't see how an underlying  space that isn't matter or energy could do anything . It is my personal opinion that Newton was correct about absolute space and the immovable nature of space but I also think that Einstein was correct too . If we consider that a Hilbert space or a Higgs field in being ''fused'' with space and indistinguishable from space in appearance, then this allows for space-time curvature and expansion . However , it isn't the underlying space that curves or expands but rather instead , it is the substance that is ''fused'' with space . The problem is though , any of the mentioned could be viewed as an aether which we are unable to detect presently ! Additionally in considering any sort of spatial ''fabric'' , we'd have to consider the laws of conservation of space , asking the question does space have the potential to conserve an amount of energy. 

I have reversed the negative vote as you are quite pleasantly arguing your case.

The 'expansion' of space is an interpretation of an emperical (observational) fact, due to Hubble.

The 'underlying' - actually applied or chosen - coordinate system are not part of the object we call the universe of space and time  - if you like the 'fabric'.
 

 

 

[Ghideon]

 

1 hour ago, Ned said:

Absolute space

Is absolute space in your idea the same as a preferred frame or privileged frame? Or something else?

 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time)

[Ned]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

The 'expansion' of space is an interpretation of an emperical (observational) fact, due to Hubble.

 

 

 

I agree that the observation of a Hubble red-shift is fact but could we interpret this information in any other way than ''expansion'' ? 

 

 

 

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, Ned said:

I agree that the observation of a Hubble red-shift is fact but could we interpret this information in any other way than ''expansion'' ? 

 

 

 

There have been attempts, for instance the "tired light" hypothesis, but nothing that fits all the observations. 

[Ned]

32 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

Is absolute space in your idea the same as a preferred frame or privileged frame? Or something else?

 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time)

I think absolute space in my idea could be viewed as a preferred frame where the physics differs slightly from the relative reference frame (space-time) . However , there is some properties that remain the same , xyz for example . The only major difference to Newtons absolute space compared to my presentation , is that the absolute space does not have an absolute time . The reason for this is because there is no energy or matter in that region of space to age , it is timeless ! Added- I forgot to mention that my version of absolute space has several properties and my main interest is the conservation of energy property . My thoughts on this consider Diracs thoughts on particles popping into and out of existence . The difference in my version is that the particles pop into existence and are conserved rather than annihilating.

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

There have been attempts, for instance the "tired light" hypothesis, but nothing that fits all the observations. 

I personally cannot see how something that is receding away from an observer can have a red-shift of light when light passing through space is transparent . It makes no sense to me that we are detecting 750nm?  from distant bodies . Perhaps the red-shift is just simply a congestion of photons , the ''telescope end'' . 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Ned