Thinking about the universe

[jajrussel]

One could look at the universe and say that stars form in a vacuum. One could think about the universe and say that is completely impossible for stars to form in a vacuum.

After thinking about it I am becoming certain that both statements are wrong. Thinking about science is still a new thing for me; the trying to make sense of it all.

I was having trouble figuring out what space is. I seemed to have some sort of grasp on the thought, but the problem there was that I was thinking of the universe as being made of matter and space. The problem with the thought is that matter occupies space, and another part of the problem was that I was viewing space and vacuum as if they were one in the same. It would be better for me to say that the universe is made up of vacuum and matter and that space is a property of each.

Now I can say that stars form in space, and that they are made up of vacuum and matter. We tend to see gravity as needing space for the numbers to work. The problem here is that we have two distant objects, yet we could place a third object between the two distant objects and the gravity keeps on working even though our space between the two is occupied by matter.

If I think of space as being a property of vacuum and matter then gravity is going to work in either condition. The thought is going toward the universe having just two primary ingredients. One would be matter; the other would be vacuum.

Now I can have a sample volume of space occupied by vacuum and matter. How that space behaves depends on the ratio of matter to vacuum within the given volume, and the space that surrounds it, which is also made up of matter and vacuum from which we could take other equal sample volumes and find various ratios of matter to vacuum within each sample. One sample might be a black hole, another might be a star, another might be a planet, and another might be a seemingly unoccupied volume. Then one should expect matter to behave differently to some degree within each volume.

The fact that I used massive objects to define the samples would incline one to assume that the samples have to be large, but they do not, they could have a diameter of one centimeter, or they could be incredibly smaller. What they would have to do is remain where they are to some degree assuming that each is moving to begin with. If I could move an incredibly small sample from a black hole to seemingly unoccupied space the result might be catastrophic for me considering that I was handling a very large amount of matter no longer constrained by the confines that made it a part of a black hole namely gravity. (Some may have problems with this thought, but I am talking about a part of a black hole and not the whole. Anyway it is the sample that matters.) In a sense I am talking about densities. Each volume would have a different density, or ratio of matter to vacuum. The result being that we should expect matter to behave very differently within each volume.

 

I am not done with the thought here, but I do have to stop for a while… I hope to some degree I am making sense.

[pantheory]

One could look at the universe and say that stars form in a vacuum. One could think about the universe and say that is completely impossible for stars to form in a vacuum.

After thinking about it I am becoming certain that both statements are wrong. Thinking about science is still a new thing for me; the trying to make sense of it all.

 

I was having trouble figuring out what space is. I seemed to have some sort of grasp on the thought, but the problem there was that I was thinking of the universe as being made of matter and space. The problem with the thought is that matter occupies space, and another part of the problem was that I was viewing space and vacuum as if they were one in the same. It would be better for me to say that the universe is made up of vacuum and matter and that space is a property of each.

Now I can say that stars form in space, and that they are made up of vacuum and matter. We tend to see gravity as needing space for the numbers to work. The problem here is that we have two distant objects, yet we could place a third object between the two distant objects and the gravity keeps on working even though our space between the two is occupied by matter.

 

If I think of space as being a property of vacuum and matter then gravity is going to work in either condition. The thought is going toward the universe having just two primary ingredients. One would be matter; the other would be vacuum.

Now I can have a sample volume of space occupied by vacuum and matter. How that space behaves depends on the ratio of matter to vacuum within the given volume, and the space that surrounds it, which is also made up of matter and vacuum from which we could take other equal sample volumes and find various ratios of matter to vacuum within each sample. One sample might be a black hole, another might be a star, another might be a planet, and another might be a seemingly unoccupied volume. Then one should expect matter to behave differently to some degree within each volume.

 

The fact that I used massive objects to define the samples would incline one to assume that the samples have to be large, but they do not, they could have a diameter of one centimeter, or they could be incredibly smaller. What they would have to do is remain where they are to some degree assuming that each is moving to begin with. If I could move an incredibly small sample from a black hole to seemingly unoccupied space the result might be catastrophic for me considering that I was handling a very large amount of matter no longer constrained by the confines that made it a part of a black hole namely gravity. (Some may have problems with this thought, but I am talking about a part of a black hole and not the whole. Anyway it is the sample that matters.) In a sense I am talking about densities. Each volume would have a different density, or ratio of matter to vacuum. The result being that we should expect matter to behave very differently within each volume.

 

I am not done with the thought here, but I do have to stop for a while… I hope to some degree I am making sense.

 

Lots of good thoughts here IMO. You might wish to separate your thoughts/ paragraphs since I think it make for easier reading.

Edited October 27, 2011 by pantheory

[jajrussel]

Thank You. It does read much easier.

 

I have had another thought.

 

With the newer talk of dark energy, and dark matter. If dark matter exist as particles could anti-dark matter particles exist, and if so would anti-dark matter / dark matter annihilation account for a spreading universe?

 

Okay, I googled it, so maybe not...

Edited October 30, 2011 by jajrussel

[pantheory]

Thank You. It does read much easier.

 

I have had another thought.

 

With the newer talk of dark energy, and dark matter. If dark matter exist as particles could anti-dark matter particles exist, and if so would anti-dark matter / dark matter annihilation account for a spreading universe?

 

Okay, I googled it, so maybe not...

The structure of Dark Matter is strictly speculative since what is believed to be the primary entity of it has not been observed. They are fairly certain there is something there, but even to call it matter is somewhat speculative. Dark Energy, in the same way, is also strictly speculative. It is still possible that neither exist and that the names Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just placeholders for our lack of understandings concerning a volume of observations.

Edited November 3, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

One could look at the universe and say that stars form in a vacuum. One could think about the universe and say that is completely impossible for stars to form in a vacuum.

After thinking about it I am becoming certain that both statements are wrong. Thinking about science is still a new thing for me; the trying to make sense of it all.

I was having trouble figuring out what space is. I seemed to have some sort of grasp on the thought, but the problem there was that I was thinking of the universe as being made of matter and space. The problem with the thought is that matter occupies space, and another part of the problem was that I was viewing space and vacuum as if they were one in the same. It would be better for me to say that the universe is made up of vacuum and matter and that space is a property of each.

Now I can say that stars form in space, and that they are made up of vacuum and matter. We tend to see gravity as needing space for the numbers to work. The problem here is that we have two distant objects, yet we could place a third object between the two distant objects and the gravity keeps on working even though our space between the two is occupied by matter.

If I think of space as being a property of vacuum and matter then gravity is going to work in either condition. The thought is going toward the universe having just two primary ingredients. One would be matter; the other would be vacuum.

Now I can have a sample volume of space occupied by vacuum and matter. How that space behaves depends on the ratio of matter to vacuum within the given volume, and the space that surrounds it, which is also made up of matter and vacuum from which we could take other equal sample volumes and find various ratios of matter to vacuum within each sample. One sample might be a black hole, another might be a star, another might be a planet, and another might be a seemingly unoccupied volume. Then one should expect matter to behave differently to some degree within each volume.

The fact that I used massive objects to define the samples would incline one to assume that the samples have to be large, but they do not, they could have a diameter of one centimeter, or they could be incredibly smaller. What they would have to do is remain where they are to some degree assuming that each is moving to begin with. If I could move an incredibly small sample from a black hole to seemingly unoccupied space the result might be catastrophic for me considering that I was handling a very large amount of matter no longer constrained by the confines that made it a part of a black hole namely gravity. (Some may have problems with this thought, but I am talking about a part of a black hole and not the whole. Anyway it is the sample that matters.) In a sense I am talking about densities. Each volume would have a different density, or ratio of matter to vacuum. The result being that we should expect matter to behave very differently within each volume.

 

I am not done with the thought here, but I do have to stop for a while… I hope to some degree I am making sense.

 

That is wonderful, I like it very much. I hope you understand that your very logical description doesn't make sense. I hope the others understand that too. There must be something wrong in it, don't you see?

 

Note: I don't know exactly where things go wrong, but it must be somewhere at the right beginning.

[Realitycheck]

Maybe this will help. What happens before stars form is that regions of space congregate with gas that is very thick, gravity pulls it together so thick and dense that it becomes so hot and heavy that two atoms merge, igniting it and setting off the chain-reaction for millions and billions of years. To give you an idea of how thick the insides of star is, one cubic meter of the insides of a star weighs about a hundred thousand kilograms. That's why they last so many billions of years, because most of the hydrogen is just in super-excited form, but only a relatively small portion is being fused into helium gradually, creating incredible amounts of energy. Having so much hydrogen in one place gives it so much gravity that its able to keep itself from falling apart and leaking out into the vacuum of space pulling on it from all around.

It's kind of hard to imagine what a vacuum is like from the confines of an atmosphere, but you can think of it as being like having so little air available, that it would suck all the air out of your room so fast and hard that all of the furniture and stuff in your room would fly up and stick to the pipe. When you see how much mass and density that goes into stars and stuff, you find out how violent it can be. Thankfully, we have this big atmosphere to cushion us from everything. I hope I answered your questions somewhat.

[jajrussel]

The goal is to make sense of chaos.

There is always something in a statement that does not make sense when you think about the statement. The more I think about it the less sense it makes, then the more I think about it the more sense it makes.

 

We talk about the vast vacuum of space. The word vast implies distance. Then we think about the molecular structure of a piece of wood, and define vast distances between the atoms that make the piece of wood.

 

Yes, I can go smaller than the atom. I can think about it some more; and I probably will but do I need to? I have already thought of another question, or is it really a question? It is hard to tell sometimes.

 

Everything is made up of matter? Yes or no?

If the answer is yes, then can I say that vacuum does not exist?

 

It seems to make more sense to say that everything is made up of matter and vacuum. It does not make sense to say that stars form in a vacuum because by saying vacuum I am indicating that no matter is present.

 

The second sentence is wrong because the presence of vacuum is necessary. There has to be a ratio of matter to vacuum per unit volume. Too much matter and we have a portion of a black hole rather than a star. Too much vacuum, then there is not enough matter to form a star. Trying to examine the volume sample without considering the part it plays within a system is senseless because the system that it is a part of influences how it behaves as a sample.

 

I do think that I was wrong in saying that space is a property of both vacuum and matter. The inverse of the thought would be more in line with current thoughts. Vacuum and matter are properties of Space.

 

Trying to think of space as a property of vacuum and matter tends to lend credence to the thought that time might act differently to one or the other independently. One might calculate variations in time between two volumes of space, but the change from one volume to another is a smooth flow. There are no gaps. Both volumes are a part of the same universe. You can’t get there from here without moving through some portion of the system; that is the universe.

 

Some might not be inclined to agree. I think I understand the thoughts of multiple universes, but if they exist there are still transitions and there is no reason to think that if I moved from one universe to another that I would notice any difference in the flow of time. An observer might start chatting me up about the amazing time variations I just went through, but I would probably just scratch my head and wonder what the observer was talking about.

For that matter, you might be scratching your head now. In truth I am thinking about the universe, and not just how stars form. I am trying to make the thoughts clear, and am trying to make sense of the thoughts. I think that it is too easy to forget that what we are thinking sometimes doesn’t make sense, because we are too focused on our intent. We are not looking to understand. We are looking to prove, and in doing so limit our ability to reason. Yes, I do tend to go here all too often, only to find that I haven’t got a clue.

 

The universe is chaos. I shouldn’t wonder that there are things I don’t understand. The truth is I am glad. What would I do if I didn’t need to think? Every thought would make sense, so then what would I do? Probably I would ask myself why…

[jajrussel]

Information lags.

 

The current thought of information lag as I understand it is that information can only travel so fast. This means that if I had a second hand on a watch that was one light second long; labeled the center point A, and the outer end point B, what would happen is that as each second ticked by for point A, point B would always be one second behind. The second hand would be slightly curved.

 

Reason then dictates that regardless how long or short the second hand is, the same slight curve will always be there.

 

This has given me a thought on how to express time as a wave oscillation; though I have to admit that I am not sure that wave oscillation is the correct term. It is just that the term wave oscillation is what came to mind as I was having the thought.

 

The thought involves three or more points on a plain, or three or more points on a straight line; depending on how you want to view the thought. The straight line might be easier. The points are labeled A, B, C, and so on. Each point is exactly one light second distant.

 

At the word go, A starts its engine and sends a signal to B to start its engine. The process of starting the engine and sending the signal takes one second; the signal takes another second to reach B who repeats the process sending the signal to C, and so on.

 

The process of starting the engine and sending the signal goes below the line, and is presented to be information lag through a congested medium. The signal itself goes above the line and is presented to be information lag through a vacuum medium. Remember the slight curve in the second hand at this point…

 

In values of time each point on the line is exactly the same as the distance between each point.

 

If I expressed the thought correctly the wave becomes clear, and brings to mind more thoughts dealing with space and time.

[jajrussel]

Time

 

There is a lot thought given to Time. Sometimes the expression, the Theory of Time, is used as if there is a given theory that is accepted, and that when one talks about time the understanding of the one being talked to should be a given; Which rarely occurs. Even when there are basic acceptances of what time is the words used to express a thought about time are so easy to disagree with. Sometimes the thought gets buried in clarification. All we remember of the thought is the disagreements.

 

This makes talking about time, and some thoughts tightly tied to time very difficult. The result being that a lot of thinking about just how to express an idea is given to the idea. Then after figuring out exactly how we want to express ourselves we find that the expression disagrees, or sheds a new light on another aspect generally given to be accepted about the thought.

 

Time seems to flow, so it is easy to say that time flows; only to have someone else disagree, and maybe rightly so. Is time flowing or is the universe flowing? When we give something a time value; is the value related to time or is the time values relationship to the object? Remove the object from the thought and what happens to the time value?

 

It seems to me that there has to be a correlation, so that when we say that time flows it is a given that the meaning is; something is moving.

 

Synchronization is a human thought, but it is a thought that comes from observation. In my thought on information lag we could easily substitute a medium that takes a photon exactly one second to pass through for each point on the line. It doesn’t matter what the medium is, or what its dimensions are so long as it takes exactly one second for the photon to pass through the medium.

 

Now, regardless where the photon is on the line it is in sync. Time isn’t doing anything strange or weird, nor is the universe. The mechanics can always be explained, and generally in a straight forward way. If we are lacking the lack is in our understanding of the mechanics. We may have difficulty describing an observations relation to time, but we can probably be pretty certain that the observation is in sync with the universe.