pink_trike Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Howdy, I've got a few questions about whatever it is within which "the universe" appears... Is there a distinction between the "universe" and "space"? I see the two terms used interchangeably quite a lot. If the universe is the definition of "space"... then what is the formal scientific name of what the universe is expanding "into" or "out of"? Is the term "universe" just a convenience used to describe patterns and processes of energy/movement taking place within space? If this is the case, then is there any reason why there wouldn't be other, even many universes? Simple, please...I realize there really isn't any boundaries to the universe, and that space is inseparable somehow from time, which complicates any answers there might be to my questions...but I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Or just let me know that I'm asking all the wrong questions, if that's the case. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamerat Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) When someone mention ''space was created 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since'' which he meant is that the space contained within this universe has been expanding with the expansion of the universe. <br> <br> Space is the distance between objects within the universe.<br> Within the universe is everything which exist- matter, energy, galaxy and space. (or so we thought)<br> <br> As to what the universe is expanding into, or what lies outside the universe, there are varying views to this:<br> We see that the universe is expanding as the space between objects appears to be moving further away from each other at an increasing rate (Hubble redshift), also supported by the Cosmic Microwave Background.<br> One may argue that the universe is everything there is and thus it is meaningless to say that it is expanding into 'something'<br> however, to accommodate this 'moving apart' , there must be an increase in volume. So how can the universe not increase into any kind of measurable volume when objects within the universe can move further and further away apart from each other? <br> Unless the universe is finite in nature<br> - now comes another issue- <br> The universe is not observationally infinite. It has a finite size called the particle horizon which has a radius of 13.5bly.<br> <br> My take on this is that many of the assumptions we make do not have solid empirical evidence thus the truth of this proposition is unknowable and is subjected to differing perceptions.<br> <br> I hope i have not confuse you further. Edited March 21, 2011 by lamerat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Howdy, I've got a few questions about whatever it is within which "the universe" appears... Is there a distinction between the "universe" and "space"? I see the two terms used interchangeably quite a lot. If the universe is the definition of "space"... then what is the formal scientific name of what the universe is expanding "into" or "out of"? Is the term "universe" just a convenience used to describe patterns and processes of energy/movement taking place within space? If this is the case, then is there any reason why there wouldn't be other, even many universes? Simple, please...I realize there really isn't any boundaries to the universe, and that space is inseparable somehow from time, which complicates any answers there might be to my questions...but I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Or just let me know that I'm asking all the wrong questions, if that's the case. thanks. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33180-cosmo-basics/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Imo, "universe" is a boolean term that refers to the superset of all possible subsets and their contents. If you regard "space" or "spacetime" as part of "the universal set" that includes everything, then it would have to contain "space(time)." By the same logic, if the universal set is to be truly ultimately universal, nothing else could contain it. I think a lot depends on how you define "space(time)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) I like that title "Space". My mind chatter wants to add "...the final frontier. These are the voyages of..." "...Is there a distinction between the "universe" and "space"? I see the two terms used interchangeably quite a lot." The universe includes space and matter. Space is only a medium between atoms of matter, with virtual particles popping in and out. Edited March 22, 2011 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matterdoc Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Space is a functional entity, presupposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage real entities. It is an imaginary container of real entities. Space has no form or structure. Universe is the total extent of real entities. It is unlimited because however far you go, you will find real entities there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Space is wrong. Spacetime is correct. Our intuition makes us believe that space alone can exist, but it is wrong. When you look at the distance between your face and your desktop screen, there is not only space in it, there is time also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristarchus in Exile Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Quantum Loop Gravity theory says space is composed of pieces of whatever it is at about the Plank length .. I assume at that length whatever it is must be energy. A good article on this in a recent Scientific American. The universe appears to be space in combination with matter, for instance, Relativity suggests stars' mass warps space, therefore forming curved paths of light, etc. Spacetime is suggested by somet theorists as being indivisible, but Loop Quantum Gravity suggests space and time are seperate, woven together, with Time also divided into lengths somewhat equal to Plank lengths. I prefer to belive that space and time are seperate, but I also believe in non-locality, so will be considered extreme by most Relativists. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristarchus in Exile Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Space is wrong. Spacetime is correct. Our intuition makes us believe that space alone can exist, but it is wrong. When you look at the distance between your face and your desktop screen, there is not only space in it, there is time also. Yes there is space and time, but if space and time are two seperate events either interwoven or simply acting together then either could theoretically be manipulated without mainipulation of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Yes there is space and time, but if space and time are two seperate events either interwoven or simply acting together then either could theoretically be manipulated without mainipulation of the other. I don't see space & time as 2 different materials interwoven. To me space & time are not even "made of the same stuff": they are not separable, they are one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristarchus in Exile Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I don't see space & time as 2 different materials interwoven. To me space & time are not even "made of the same stuff": they are not separable, they are one. Quantum Loop Gravity predicts that they are seperate but 'interwoven.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Quantum Loop Gravity predicts that they are seperate but 'interwoven.' That is far above my head. Are you sure it is a prediction? or a premise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristarchus in Exile Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) That is far above my head. Are you sure it is a prediction? or a premise? Without looking up the meanings of those words I would say they are the same. Okay, I looked up the meanings in Wikipedia, and while some people will argue the meanings are distinct from each other, in my opinion they basically amount to the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity Edited October 21, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Is it that the space is plastic, or that time is? In my eyes, probably only one is and that they are not necessarily married to each other, like space is plastic but time is just a measuring stick. If the rate of time slows as the rate of motion increases, my gut tells me that space is the thing that is plastic because it is the only thing connecting the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristarchus in Exile Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Is it that the space is plastic, or that time is? In my eyes, probably only one is and that they are not necessarily married to each other, like space is plastic but time is just a measuring stick. If the rate of time slows as the rate of motion increases, my gut tells me that space is the thing that is plastic because it is the only thing connecting the two. Space does appear to be plastic .. Spin Foam plastic according to Loop Quatum Gravity. Strip time out of space and I think everything would just stop moving .. in fact everything might disappear, as it seems time is essential to material being. Are Pascual Jordan's quantum fluctuations which he says create matter simply bits of time perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Quantum Loop Gravity predicts that they are seperate but 'interwoven.' The next prediction from Quantum Loop Gravity will be the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Without looking up the meanings of those words I would say they are the same. Okay, I looked up the meanings in Wikipedia, and while some people will argue the meanings are distinct from each other, in my opinion they basically amount to the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity I looked the wiki article. Spacetime is an emergent property in LQG. That is what I call a prediction. A premise is something you have put as a working hypothesis, it is the contrary of a prediction. Quantum Loop Gravity predicts that they are seperate but 'interwoven.' I didn't see that in the wiki link. I saw "spacetime". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristarchus in Exile Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I looked the wiki article. Spacetime is an emergent property in LQG. That is what I call a prediction. A premise is something you have put as a working hypothesis, it is the contrary of a prediction. I didn't see that in the wiki link. I saw "spacetime". I read more than Wiki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now