Objectivism and the unknown?

[EC]

I found the May 2008 thread where you posted an essay by someone else. I'll have to read that more than once before I can comment on it.

I recommend that you do. It will make sense once you do.

[avgleandt]

One of my interests is physics, so I have read a few books on this subject, but I am currently not up to date because I been out of the loop for a little bit of time. I believe that according to most up to date data and research and scientific measurements of the backround radiation they think. The universe is finite, flat, and expanding. One interesting thing I read briefly about the expansion that might point to a possibility of it being unbounded, if i remeber this correctly. Imagine a rubber band. Start streching it, which parts of the rubber band are expading the fastest? The corners or the ends of the rubber band are expading much faster then the middle. The similar thing is currently happening to space. The edges of space and the universe is expanding much faster then the rest of the universe. So fast in fact, I beleive they measured it to be almost twice the speed of light. Now that seems impossible according to theory of relativity, however the thoery of relativity only says that only things traveling throw space cannot break the light barrier, it doesn't say anything about space its self. Since the edges of space are expanding faster then we can possibly get to them, we can never reach the edge of the universe. If you doubt that space cannot strech faster then light speed, then you should think about the big bang. Big bang would not of been possible is space could not strech at greater then light speeds. During the big bang there was something called infamitory expansion, when the universe grew at ridicoulus speeds, which they think made all the forces such as gravity and electormagnitism possible. sorry for grammar and spelling its really late here.

Edited August 8, 2008 by avgleandt

[Grames]

One of my interests is physics, so I have read a few books on this subject, but I am currently not up to date because I been out of the loop for a little bit of time. I believe that according to most up to date data and research and scientific measurements of the backround radiation they think. The universe is finite, flat, and expanding. One interesting thing I read briefly about the expansion that might point to a possibility of it being unbounded, if i remeber this correctly. Imagine a rubber band. Start streching it, which parts of the rubber band are expading the fastest? The corners or the ends of the rubber band are expading much faster then the middle. The similar thing is currently happening to space. The edges of space and the universe is expanding much faster then the rest of the universe. So fast in fact, I beleive they measured it to be almost twice the speed of light. Now that seems impossible according to theory of relativity, however the thoery of relativity only says that only things traveling throw space cannot break the light barrier, it doesn't say anything about space its self. Since the edges of space are expanding faster then we can possibly get to them, we can never reach the edge of the universe. If you doubt that space cannot strech faster then light speed, then you should think about the big bang. Big bang would not of been possible is space could not strech at greater then light speeds. During the big bang there was something called infamitory expansion, when the universe grew at ridicoulus speeds, which they think made all the forces such as gravity and electormagnitism possible. sorry for grammar and spelling its really late here.

Edge of space? Is that like when you sail over the horizon and fall over the edge of the world?

[EC]

avgleandt-- You are correct that evidence has shown that the universe is flat and homogeneous to a very high degree when taken on large enough scales (on the order of superclusters), but the interpretation that space is expanding is incorrect in the sense that it is blowing up like a balloon or something. Space is just a relationship between existents ,and as such has no independent existence.

Actually general relativity does allow for space itself to expand quicker than the speed of light. The light speed limit only applies to things that have mass. But according to GR massless particles and space itself can travel superluminally but as I said this is a misinterpretation of the physics.

The big bang was a phase transition of the energy state of an eternal universe.

[avgleandt]

avgleandt-- You are correct that evidence has shown that the universe is flat and homogeneous to a very high degree when taken on large enough scales (on the order of superclusters), but the interpretation that space is expanding is incorrect in the sense that it is blowing up like a balloon or something. Space is just a relationship between existents ,and as such has no independent existence.

Actually general relativity does allow for space itself to expand quicker than the speed of light. The light speed limit only applies to things that have mass. But according to GR massless particles and space itself can travel superluminally but as I said this is a misinterpretation of the physics.

The big bang was a phase transition of the energy state of an eternal universe.

Space does have an independent existence, i believe your not familiar with general relativity. Not only does space have independent exsistance but so does time. Scientists usually refer to it togethore as spacetime. Plantes and stars have an effect on spacetime through gravity, they bend and warp it. These are concepts of special and general relativity.

They currently do not know what there was before the big bang because the math and equations they currently have break down at a certain point and they can't explore much further. They currenlty theorize that the 3 spacial dimension and the one time dimension where all curled up before the big bang. So that could be what you call an enternal universe adn the phase shift is the big bang when for some reason the dimensions decided to start streching out. However, since the big bang was the begining of time, there is no point in talking about what there was before time. Time always exsisted.

Edited August 8, 2008 by avgleandt

[EC]

I am an expert in regard to general relativity. No offence, but the standard intepretation that "spacetime" exists indepently is incorrect. Have you ever studied M-theory or the Plank-time era after the bang's inflationary physics? There was no "beginning of time"; such a concept is a metaphysical impossibility; time is eternal. Space and time are just relationships between existents. The standard interpretation of GR as "spacetime" existing as its own entity is incorrect both metaphysically, and with regard to the Riemannian geometry and/or the physical interpretation of the equations. Actually, space and time only exist within the universe, they do NOT apply to the universe qua universe.

[avgleandt]

I am an expert in regard to general relativity. No offence, but the standard intepretation that "spacetime" exists indepently is incorrect. Have you ever studied M-theory or the Plank-time era after the bang's inflationary physics? There was no "beginning of time"; such a concept is a metaphysical impossibility; time is eternal. Space and time are just relationships between existents. The standard interpretation of GR as "spacetime" existing as its own entity is incorrect both metaphysically, and with regard to the Riemannian geometry and/or the physical interpretation of the equations. Actually, space and time only exist within the universe, they do NOT apply to the universe qua universe.

I have read about M-theory and Plank length. I don't remember them explaining any new interpertations of spacetime. I remeber M-theory pointing to something that can be called the big bounce instead of big bang, where the universe expands and contracts enternally. M-theory was also saying that there is 12 deminsions and our current 4 deminsional spacetime could be a membrane floating within a higher demision(if this is what you mean by existing within the universe). However, there is no evidence of any of this so far. I do not however understand how spacetime is not its own entity, wether it is with in the universe or not within it, either way its something. Could you explain or point me to some reading?

[EC]

The simplest answer is that space time are simply relationships between entities, not physical entities themselves as the concept of spacetime implies. A simple analogy is people exist as distinct entities, and various relationships can exist between these people, however, the "relationship" is NOT a physical entity in itself, and the relationships that exist between these people could NOT exist without the existence of the physical entities (the people). Does that help?

M-theory actually usually contains 11 dimensions not 12, and the Ekpyrotic theory of eternally bouncing branes is one of several pre-bang theories that are still in the theoretical stages. Some evidence does exist supporting superstring theory although it is still rather indirect. The recently started experiment at LHC in Europe should show more explicit evidence of stringy physics including supersymmetric partners of standard model particles or sparticles that must exist if string and M-theory are on the right track.

Edited August 9, 2008 by EC

[avgleandt]

The simplest answer is that space time are simply relationships between entities, not physical entities themselves as the concept of spacetime implies. A simple analogy is people exist as distinct entities, and various relationships can exist between these people, however, the "relationship" is NOT a physical entity in itself, and the relationships that exist between these people could NOT exist without the existence of the physical entities (the people). Does that help?

If space is not a something, how do you explain how gravity exerts its force?

[EC]

If space is not a something, how do you explain how gravity exerts its force?

A combination of interactions between gravitons and mass having particles via the Higgs Field as a result of supersymmetry breaking.