A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Science
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is Space Really Empty



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 13, 07:25 AM posted to sci.space.science
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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

  #2  
Old February 3rd 13, 09:26 PM posted to sci.space.science
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Is Space Really Empty

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

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.

The email is valid as
Blind user.
"David Spain" wrote in message
...
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  
Old February 6th 13, 04:21 AM posted to sci.space.science
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old February 6th 13, 04:29 PM posted to sci.space.science
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old February 9th 13, 02:10 AM posted to sci.space.science
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default 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  
Old February 11th 13, 02:00 PM posted to sci.space.science
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old February 11th 13, 07:17 PM posted to sci.space.science
Peter Fairbrother
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default 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  
Old February 12th 13, 02:42 AM posted to sci.space.science
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old February 12th 13, 02:42 AM posted to sci.space.science
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old February 12th 13, 02:43 AM posted to sci.space.science
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Space Really Empty h v mohanlal Space Station 1 November 16th 12 11:58 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 03:46 PM
Any SPACE where a particle is, is NOT empty.!! brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 January 18th 06 10:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.