Stupid physics questions

Maybe they lack the technology to measure it?
What's on the other side of space? Counter-space maybe.

originally posted by: kcgads
I apologize in advance for my stupid questions. But I feel I can't move forward in my study of physics until I get some basic understanding. I read and read, but still my questions are unanswered. Basically, I need to know what the "stuff" of the universe is.

For 95% of it, we don't know. 5% of the stuff is baryonic matter like you and the Earth you're inhabiting, so we know what that is for the most part.

science.nasa.gov...

It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

what about the parts that are not matter?

Does matter, exotic and mundane, fill every ounce of spatial volume?

If space is expanding, what is it expanding into?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So there is a good possibility that ones they find out what the missing 95% is, our current understanding of the known universe and laws of physics collapse?
Theories based on 5% doesn't sound to promising.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do we know for sure that space is expanding? There seems to be a lot of debate on the red shift.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Dark energy isn't matter and it may fill all space, but we don't understand it that well. That's what most of the universe is made of according to current ideas.

There's no answer to the question about what the universe is expanding into, well maybe there is but there's no way for us to learn the answer.

www.astro.ucla.edu...

What is the Universe expanding into?

This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about. Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D space that the Universe is expanding into.
For objects in our ordinary experience, like the rising loaf of raisin bread dough also used as an analogy to the expanding Universe, there are two ways to see that the object is expanding:

The distances between objects are all increasing, so the distance between any pair of raisins increases by an amount proportional to the distance.
The edge of the loaf pushes out into previously unoccupied space. Note the distance between any pair of points on the edge increases by an amount proportional to the distance.

The first statement involves the internal geometry of the object, which can be measured by an observer sitting in the object. The second statement involves the external geometry of the object, which can only be measured by an observer outside the object. Since we are stuck within our spacetime, we need to study the internal geometry of space-time, and that is what general relativity does. In terms of internal geometry, any object with the first property above is expanding. Furthermore the Universe is homogeneous so it does not have any edge. Thus it can't have the second property above. But it does have the first property so we say the Universe is expanding.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Do we know for sure that space is expanding? There seems to be a lot of debate on the red shift.

Where? You mean electric universe? There's no debate about that either, not among scientists.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So there is a good possibility that ones they find out what the missing 95% is, our current understanding of the known universe and laws of physics collapse?
Theories based on 5% doesn't sound to promising.

No, I doubt they will collapse. It will probably be more like when Einstein showed Newton's classical mechanics was "wrong". Einstein basically had to show why we thought it was "right" for centuries, and provide a more accurate model that matched observation better, which is exactly what he did. Even though Newton's model turned out to be somewhat wrong, it's still essentially right in many areas, such as those dealing with velocities much lower than the speed of light.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
No, the electric universe has many problems.

Halton Arp? John Kierein? Are they not scientists?


But it's 5% against 95%
You have to be darn smart to match these, if you understand me.

a reply to: intergalactic fire
Halton Arp:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.

So by Arp's own admission the entire scientific community is pretty much united in its belief he's wrong, and I'm sure he is, about that bridge, where I showed my own analysis in that link, and probably similar claims too though I haven't investigated every claim Arp made.

It's more than a stretch to call all other scientists saying "you're wrong" a "debate".

We don't make many claims about the 95% so it's hard to be wrong when you're not making claims. We mostly say we don't know exactly what it is.

The 5% we have studied closely so I don't think we can be too wrong about that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok so it's just digital error and perspective. Could be.

What's your opinion on the plasma redshift.
I have to look into that again but it just comes to my mind now.
Couple years back i watched or read somewhere ( i believe it was one of those electric universe guys)that these experiments and theory would change our perception of the red shift.
I'm not up to date on the progress on this but i'm sure you're familiar to it.

... and thanks for taking your time to answer my previous questions


I just saw you have an own thread about physics, maybe i should ask my questions there, not to spoil this thread

I made a post a long time ago regarding the nature of space, so I’m just gonna copy/paste part of it here cause I’m lazy. It seems there’s some confusion regarding the term, “curvature of space”. This term has been used recklessly for a long time and is grossly misunderstood.

Over the years our popular literature and media have created a number of misconceptions surrounding certain areas of science. It wasn’t so much a matter of intentionally misleading the public, but more of an attempt to make some very difficult concepts more understandable for the average Joe. And to make matters even worse, many scientists have further perpetuated these misconceptions when presenting certain concepts/research to the public out of pure laziness. Unfortunately, though, these misconceptions have become so ingrained in our perception of reality that it’s nearly impossible for many of us to shake them. Discarding some of these notions is a common problem faced by many undergraduate math and physics students.

I believe the following are consistent with current mainstream scientific thinking:

1. The Nature of Space
Space, in and of itself, is only a geometric volume. It has no physical properties or energy to be warped, twisted, stretched, curved, etc. Statements about “curved space”, etc are misleading in that it implies space has some set of physical properties of it’s own. Space is simply the geometric volume which contains the existing energy/mass of the universe. To say that space expands only means that the volume has increased.

2. Space in Terms of General Relativity
How particles and forces influence each other are expressed mathematically as geometric relationships, describing how the particles, etc being measured occupy the volume of space. When GR uses the term “spacetime curvature”, it’s describing how gravity influences the matter residing in spacetime and not that space itself has a curvature. GR is strictly a theory of geometry and does not state that space has a fabric or substance or any other physical property. It describes how objects with mass interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within spacetime. In Einstein’s view, the curvature of spacetime (not space) is the result of gravity’s influence on the way matter is distributed. In any case, flat space and curved spacetime are not incompatible features of our universe, and work quite well together. But don’t confuse the 2 as being the same thing, because they are quite different concepts.

OK, I imagine some folks are now wondering, “What’s the difference between space and spacetime?”. It’s not easy to explain, which is the reason for the misconceptions in the first place, but I’ll give it a shot...

Space vs Spacetime
Spacetime is the arena in which all physical events take place - an event is represented as a point in spacetime and specified by its time and location. An event in classical relativistic physics is defined using coordinates (x,y,z,t), which is the location of an elementary (point-like) particle at a particular time. A region of spacetime itself can be viewed as the union of all events taking place within it, much the same way that a line is the union of all of its points. The ‘world line’ of a particle or light beam is the path that the particle or beam takes in spacetime and represents the history of the particle or beam. The ‘world line’ of the orbit of the Earth in spacetime is usually depicted as two spatial dimensions x and y (the plane of the Earth's orbit) and a time dimension (t) orthogonal to x and y, resulting in a helix. In space alone, however, the time coordinate is dropped and the orbit of the Earth is represented as an ellipse.

Put another way, in a Euclidean space the seperation between 2 points is measured by the distance between two the 2 points . Simple enough. The distance is a purely spacial measurement. In spacetime, however, the displacement (interval) between 2 events is a completely different calculation and includes a temporal seperation factor of c2Dt2 (the speed of light squared multiplied by the time difference squared). So, in the case of purely time-like paths, geodesics are (locally) the paths of greatest separation (spacetime interval) as measured along the path between two events, whereas in Euclidean space and Riemannian manifolds, geodesics are paths of shortest distance between two points. The curvature of spacetime refers to the non-Euclidean geometry used to describe it.

For physical reasons, a spacetime continuum is mathematically defined as a four-dimensional, smooth, connected Lorentzian manifold. The Lorentz metric determines the geometry of spacetime, as well as determining the geodesics of particles and light beams. About each point (event) on this manifold, coordinate charts are used to represent observers in reference frames, using Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z,t). The concept of geodesics is central in general relativity, since geodesic motion is considered as pure, inertial motion in spacetime, and is free from any external influences.

As far as space vs spacetime goes, I heard it (somewhere?) expressed as an old Chinese proverb:

“An expanding universe demands spacetime curvature. However, it doesn’t demand space curvature.”

If you’re familiar with the Schwarzschild or Friedmann solutions in GR, you’ll note that these spatially flat solutions give motion to test bodies to account for ‘curved time’. Now there’s a concept for ya!

Somehow I doubt this post cleared anything up. BTW, what I put forth is my understanding of how mainstream physics currently views the concepts of space and spacetime. That doesn’t mean it’s written in stone and not subject to change whenever better ideas come along. It could also be that my understanding of the physics is all screwed up, and I've completely mislead you. Nothing in science, to my knowledge, is written in stone. And nothing I say is without a doubt.

Let the Good Times Roll...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I get this....but it doesn't give me an answer. Or any hope of ever having one.

Its like the only answer is 42.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
bigfatfurrytexan, you posted earlier:

“I think if you put it another way: if the universe is expanding, what exactly is it expanding into?”

Good question, but I think it’s currently beyond our ability to know. However, it reminded me of a post I made a long time ago regarding the estimated boundaries of our Universe. So, I’ll go ahead and copy/paste it here in case anyone’s interested. It might surprise some people.

Currently accepted estimates of the age of the universe indicate approx 13.8 billion years. Also widely accepted, and verified countless times experimentally, is that the universal speed limit through the vacuum of space is the speed of light. This, in turn, leads to the common misconception that the radius of the observable universe must be 13.8 billion light-years. This makes perfect sense assuming we live in a flat, static universe. We are, however, part of an expanding universe. Spacetime is continually expanding at an accelerating rate. Therefore, distance obtained by multiplying the speed of light by the age of the universe is not physically meaningful.

The observable universe (aka visible) includes all the baryonic matter (not dark matter) that we’re receiving light or other signals from. Taking the above into account, current estimates are that signals being received on Earth today include matter which is today actually about 46 billion ly from us, or 46 Gly. It’s the "proper distance", in a freeze-frame sense, that if you could pause the expansion process to give yourself time to send a radar beep, it would take 46 billion years from today to reach that most distant material/object.

So, that 46 Gly is about how far away the matter actually is today that in early times emitted the cosmic microwave background radiation that we are now detecting. So we are in effect LOOKING AT matter that is now 46+ Gly from here, but as it appeared 13.8 billion years ago as a hot gas.

That actual distance is called the "particle horizon" to distinguish it from "cosmic event horizon". The cosmic event horizon is only about 16 Gly. It’s the proper distance today of the most distant galaxy we could expect to reach with a signal we send TODAY. Beyond that point the recession speed, due to expansion (not motion thru space), is already upwards of several times the speed of light, and so our signal would never reach it. Conversely, if an event takes place today in a galaxy that is beyond the 16 Gly cosmic event horizon, say an exploding star, we will never see it no matter how long we wait. Only if it’s LESS than 16 Gly from us (today, freeze-frame i.e. proper distance) will it eventually be visible to us here on Earth.

To our knowledge, most of the objects we can see today are well beyond today's cosmic event horizon. That is, most of the galaxies we observe today are actually more than 16 Gly distant from us; what we are observing is the galaxies as they once were. Therefore, although we are theoretically able to observe all the baryonic matter (not dark matter) ever created within our universe, we just can’t see it as it exists TODAY. It’s likely to have remanifested itself into countless other forms.

What lies beyond that is purely speculative, and currently beyond our knowledge. Fun to think about, though.

I hope that halfway made sense. Some of these ideas can be hard to get a handle on, and aren't exactly intuitive.

Cheers!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I get this....but it doesn't give me an answer. Or any hope of ever having one.

There's one hope...that I know of, but it's a slim one, which is that Sonny White at NASA or one of his successors can actually make a functioning warp drive. Without that or something like it, knowing is probably impossible. Even with a warp drive I'm not sure if we would get a good answer to the question, but it would help by making some of the unobservable extents of the universe observable.

originally posted by: kcgads
I apologize in advance for my stupid questions. But I feel I can't move forward in my study of physics until I get some basic understanding. I read and read, but still my questions are unanswered. Basically, I need to know what the "stuff" of the universe is.

I thought it might be "energy" but that is defined as the ability of something to do work.

I thought it might be "mass" but that is defined as inertia.

I thought it might be "fields" but that is defined as a property of space.

Particles might be it, but they are often defined as properties of fields.

Could it be space itself as the "stuff" of the universe?

!z subjective analysis would be:
What is perceived here as space within a Universe would be a Energized electromagnetised plasmatic slurry - static fluid, Potential energy medium.
A medium that reacts to Kinetic energy producing mass whenever a kinetic energy is added to it.
But also a medium in lack of mass producing kinetic energy in some of its concentrated potential energy voids...

This would all be contained within some kind of energy containment device.

Outside of that device may be other containment devices housing different universal spaces.

Imagine being granted or given responsibility to "jump" from tank to tank. Further what would the space between the containment tanks be

NAMASTE
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: johnwick

So what is energy? Is it a thing? Most say energy is just "the ability to do work".

Although there are a few who say energy is an actual thing unto itself. Can "energy" exist alone? How can it interact with matter?

Great question!!!

OK here is where it gets weird.

Technically energy and matter are the same thing.

Think of matter as a form of concentrated energy.

In the beginning..duh duh duh...there was nothing but pure energy.

It coalesced Into hydrogen.

Which through gravity attracted massive amounts until the first fusion reaction occurred, creating the first sun.

In the heart of this sun, hydrogen atoms fused creating helium.

This process continued until the first sun began to run out of hydrogen.

At this point it began to fuse helium which .

This continues until a star creates iron, the star killer.

No matter it size or mass or power, once a star creates it first iron atom that is the end for it.

A cascade occurs as iron takes energy from the star instead of adding it.

In the blink of an eye, depending on the mass of the star, it either begins to collapse into a dim dwarf star of one caliber or another.

Or the core collapses catastrophically resulting in one of a couple of options depending on mass.

Aid range mass causes many of the heavier elements like gold platinum etc to be made and a supernova.

A high mass star creates some if the most exotic super heavy elements and a hypernova with a black hole at the center.

Sorry went off on a tangent there.

Just got home from work and had a couple of drinks.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: kcgads
Am I talking to a school boy here. Space cannot be curved, only the matter in space can be curved. Please read Einstiens theory of relativity. How can you curve nothing? Space is nothing. Now what occupies that space is another thing altogether.

Wrong on all counts.

Gravity does in fact curve space itself.

Space is an actual thing.

It is the fabric the universe and matter are painted on.

If you have enough mass and I shine a light to your side, your mass could warp space enough to cause the light to hit something in front of you.

Space is not an empty volume.

It is full.

It just looks empty.

It is not.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I think if you put it another way: if the universe is expanding, what exactly is it expanding into?

Beyond the visible edge of space, is there a space? The Deep Field from Hubble shows a relatively blank piece of sky that is literally filled to the brim with galaxies....mind boggling to think how may stars there are. But where there are no stars....what is there?

Space!!!

Space in terms that can be understood is simply infinite potential probability.

The problem is humans lack the syntax to explain any of these ideas outside of a solely mathmatical abstract.

We don't have the words or context to describe this in words in a way that can be understood by our minds.

We are basically talking about GOD, and trying to understand not only his reasons and reasonings, we are trying to describe his methods and the constructs he uses to enact them.

We are ants trying to understand and describe a Saturn V rocket.

They not only can't understand what a Saturn V is, they couldnt grasp its components, the means used to construct it, they couldnt even grasp what its purpose is.

The closest we can come in nonmathematical verbage is, space is not empty at all, every square inch everywhere is full if potential energy.

A roiling sea known as the quantum foam, where a fully loaded 1956 camaro as us just as likely to appear out of nowhere, as it is not to.

It doesn't appear, because it likely appeared in orbit around another star system billions of light years away.

It sounds like double speak from both sides of your mouth at the same time about many differing things while saying the same things at the same time.

We just aren't capable at present of understanding, let alone articulating it to others in a meaningful manner.

In short, we are ants, trying to figure out what ants on an ant him on an ant hill in gods back yard thinks about gods Saturn V rocket.

Sucks but the wonders of the universe escape us for now.

But we are growing and expanding day by day.

In a million more years...maybe we will understand we still don't understand....sucks!!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arbitrageur

what about the parts that are not matter?

Does matter, exotic and mundane, fill every ounce of spatial volume?

If space is expanding, what is it expanding into?

The best explanation is this one...sorry you won't like it.

If you stood back any distance and watched the bigbang, you would see nothing.

Whether an inch or a mile away.

Because the bigbang didn't expand into empty space like a firecracker expanding into the air.

The only way to observe the bigbang is to be inside of the space it was creating.

Basically there was no space.

The bigbang happened, and created the space as it expanded, so that observation was possible.

In effect, the universe is a balloon that it totally black.

You can't see into it, you have to be inside of it to see what is happening inside of it.

Yes this is bs and it sucks.

But it is what it is, or at least as we understand it at present.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I get this....but it doesn't give me an answer. Or any hope of ever having one.

Its like the only answer is 42.

And now you understand.

We don't know the question, how can we find the answer?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I get this....but it doesn't give me an answer. Or any hope of ever having one.

There's one hope...that I know of, but it's a slim one, which is that Sonny White at NASA or one of his successors can actually make a functioning warp drive. Without that or something like it, knowing is probably impossible. Even with a warp drive I'm not sure if we would get a good answer to the question, but it would help by making some of the unobservable extents of the universe observable.

If only!!!

Imagine the possibilities!!!

I would volunteer on a pioneer mission the the very edge of the observable universe.

Though I fear when I got there, there would just be more universe stretching on into infinity.

We still don't even know if it does could or should have an end.

We don't know if we are in flat or curved space.

If its flat we should at some pointbbe able to reach the edge.

If it is curved, there is no edge and we even after infinite time and space travelled would just arrive back here billions of years later.