|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
On 12/20/2012 11:21 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
I think though we have to remember that much of this is only predicted by theories and actually testing it out is hardly possible at the moment. I think what many of us have problems coming to terms with is that space is empty but is stretching, Obviously in this context empty merely means that there is nothing that interacts strongly with the matter we see. Brian If we run the clock forward fast enough and long enough on our current model of the universe the existence of matter becomes impossible. The universe will simply run out of energy. Unless we conjecture that some kind of ultra super duper massive black hole can radiate back to triggering another big bang on its own. Problem is there doesn't appear to be any way in the given model to create such a beast. And the physics of singularities are indeterminate anyway. To paraphrase from Dr. E: "God doesn't care about the end of the Universe and won't say why." Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
On 2/3/2013 3:26 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
So then, would the energy in the universe go negative making matter just fly into its component parts as the negative energy overwhelms the current forces. If so then where is all this energy coming from. As it cannot be destroyed, I can see it can be very defuse but surely in order for matter to stop existing there has to be something opposite or the current forces must be diminishing. Brian No official "postulates" from anything I've read, however I have a personal purely conjectured favorite. And that is that the so-called "ground-state" quantum vacuum energy is positive. Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
On 2/5/2013 10:21 PM, David Spain wrote:
On 2/3/2013 3:26 PM, Brian Gaff wrote: So then, would the energy in the universe go negative making matter just fly into its component parts as the negative energy overwhelms the current forces. If so then where is all this energy coming from. As it cannot be destroyed, I can see it can be very defuse but surely in order for matter to stop existing there has to be something opposite or the current forces must be diminishing. Brian No official "postulates" from anything I've read, however I have a personal purely conjectured favorite. And that is that the so-called "ground-state" quantum vacuum energy is positive. Dave Also note that the "end-state" universe is/will-be quite different from the one we experience today. There may be little if any "free matter" in existence, having been previously swallowed into the nearest black hole. What we are really talking about is the evolution of a black hole. Perhaps known physics can only meaningfully discuss the dissolution of normal space time as the evaporating membrane surrounding an event horizon. The end state universe is beyond strange. Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
So then, in the end does a black hole have a finite 'size' beyond which
another big bang has to occur, releasing all that energy again. Brian -- From the Bed of Brian Gaff. The email is valid as Blind user. "David Spain" wrote in message ... On 2/5/2013 10:21 PM, David Spain wrote: On 2/3/2013 3:26 PM, Brian Gaff wrote: So then, would the energy in the universe go negative making matter just fly into its component parts as the negative energy overwhelms the current forces. If so then where is all this energy coming from. As it cannot be destroyed, I can see it can be very defuse but surely in order for matter to stop existing there has to be something opposite or the current forces must be diminishing. Brian No official "postulates" from anything I've read, however I have a personal purely conjectured favorite. And that is that the so-called "ground-state" quantum vacuum energy is positive. Dave Also note that the "end-state" universe is/will-be quite different from the one we experience today. There may be little if any "free matter" in existence, having been previously swallowed into the nearest black hole. What we are really talking about is the evolution of a black hole. Perhaps known physics can only meaningfully discuss the dissolution of normal space time as the evaporating membrane surrounding an event horizon. The end state universe is beyond strange. Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
On 2/8/2013 8:10 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
So then, in the end does a black hole have a finite 'size' beyond which another big bang has to occur, releasing all that energy again. Brian Well given current state of cosmology, from what I've read I'd have to conclude no. It would have been a 'neat' way to close out a cyclical universe, but given the speed of expansion vs. contraction due to gravity current theory says expansion wins out. That means black holes that are far enough apart will never collapse together due to gravity, since expansion will drive them apart first, far enough that gravity cannot be felt between them I would presume. That means no singular black hole would ever become massive enough to trigger another big bang upon 'evaporation' due to Hawking radiation. If we assume this universal expansion is THAT powerful, it's not hard to imagine what it would ultimately either rip apart a black hole or absorb and dissolve its 'explosion' in the absence of space time itself. Or perhaps it opens up another universe of different dimensions and pitches the black hole into a white hole in that other dimension. Hard to prove that experimentally... OTOH if an experimentalist can prove non-zero ground-state vacuum energy, there would no doubt be a Nobel Prize in Physics lurking there for such a clever scientist.... Need a goal? Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
On 11/02/13 13:00, David Spain wrote:
OTOH if an experimentalist can prove non-zero ground-state vacuum energy, there would no doubt be a Nobel Prize in Physics lurking there for such a clever scientist.... Need a goal? Hasn't that been done? Casimir effect? It is standard model. -- Peter Fairbrother |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
On 2/11/2013 1:17 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 11/02/13 13:00, David Spain wrote: OTOH if an experimentalist can prove non-zero ground-state vacuum energy, there would no doubt be a Nobel Prize in Physics lurking there for such a clever scientist.... Need a goal? Hasn't that been done? Casimir effect? It is standard model. -- Peter Fairbrother I don't think they are the same. One interpretation of the Casimir effect is that it measures "resonances" or fluctuations in the vacuum energy between closely spaced parallel plates and can actually measure an attractive or repulsive force between them. But there are other interpretations that don't invoke ZPE to explain the effect. Therefore it does not establish a definitive existence of vacuum energy, nor does it establish a value for the ground state vacuum energy. A non-zero ground state vacuum energy would imply a form of 'anti-gravity' the pervades the universe and drives its expansion. At least that is my understanding of the situation. And although the former has been proved by a Nobel Prize winning experiment the latter still awaits its Nobel (my bias is showing)... The Casimir effect, if it truly is observing ZPE, is pretty astounding. Almost (but not quite IMHO) as weird as the locally intuitive 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is when considered at the cosmological scale.... Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
On 2/11/2013 1:17 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 11/02/13 13:00, David Spain wrote: OTOH if an experimentalist can prove non-zero ground-state vacuum energy, there would no doubt be a Nobel Prize in Physics lurking there for such a clever scientist.... Need a goal? Hasn't that been done? Casimir effect? It is standard model. -- Peter Fairbrother FYI, a non-ZPE interpretation for the Casimir effect can be found he http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503158v1.pdf I haven't read through this in depth, but if you want to discuss Jaffe's paper further I will attempt a full read and give you my two cents (literally about what my knowledge here is worth)... Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is Space Really Empty
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Well part of the problems (as I see them, someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the larger a black hole is, the longer it takes to evaporate, to the point that the largest would take longer than the expected life of the universe. That said, I suppose if they still exist, so would the universe, so not really sure how works. :-) But I could see it evaporating so slowly that the particles would spread out "infinitely" and by the time it does fully evaporate, there basically would be such a low density that basically the definition of the word universe ceases to have any meaning. Also, if particles are far enough that they never interact, what happens to "time". Can time even exist if nothing is happening. (i.e. if there is no way to measure the movement between particles (since they're too far away to interact) there can be no concept of a clock and according to some theories time simply ceases to exist. So then, in the end does a black hole have a finite 'size' beyond which another big bang has to occur, releasing all that energy again. Brian -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is Space Really Empty | h v mohanlal | Space Station | 1 | November 16th 12 10:58 PM |
Empty Space ????? Again More Thinking On | G=EMC^2[_2_] | Misc | 4 | October 20th 11 05:58 PM |
No Empty Space =Universes | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 3 | April 18th 09 04:16 PM |
Space and Why it Seems Empty ??? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 3 | January 28th 07 02:46 PM |
Any SPACE where a particle is, is NOT empty.!! | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 18th 06 09:09 AM |