Jump to content

If I can imagine it, it is possible!


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, swansont said:

No, that claim is without basis. The limitation is not technology, it is the finite speed of light.

How would you "observe" empty(energy and mass free) spacetime around the visible Universe, if such a scenario would be possible?

An imagined hypothetic scenario and experiment: 

Let's suppose that spacetime itself is responsible for the amount of energy a matter present in the Universe and that energy has a yet undetectably small amount of mass.  The evolution would look like: 

1, Empty spacetime starts to evolve with a rate of 90 billion km/s to all directions. 

2, When empty spacetime hit 90 billion km in diameter an electron appears exactly in the middle of this orb of empty spacetime with an extent of 300 000 km (to help to maintain the fabric of spacetime)

3. The evolution of space continues by time and more and more electron appears, while their infinitely small mass keeps and pulls them together in the center until it reaches a critical amount collapses and matter appears.

Hypothetically, with advanced technology, we would be able to create a 90 billion km big orb in the interstellar space (where the effect of the environment is the smallest), with a strong electromagnetic field around it to derail everthing what could step into our orb. We create an absolute vacuum in the orb and try to detect does something appears in it. 

Let's assume that with technology developing, we are able to detect the infinitely small mass of an electron and create such an experiment.

If the scenario would be possible and electron(s) would appear in our experiment because we know the mass of the Universe we could calculate the exact size and age of the system, so even empty spacetime could never be observable with a telescope we could calculate its extent. Or if nothing appears we could determine that spacetime has nothing to do with the evolution of energy and matter. 

 

So even I can imagine such a technology supported experiment and physical scenario, (sadly) it is not possible....

Edited by FreeWill
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"If I can read the title, I can understand the thread" 

The main thrust of the argument is known as Russell's paradox, which shows a contradiction in naive set theory. It was one of the motivations for axiomatic set theory, but lets not digress.   The p

I haven't given bad rep points much if any. You got one for this one from me. (IMO bad form not to owe up to using this button BTW. So, of course I do such. Question of honour.)   Your rebuttal does

1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

How would you "observe" empty(energy and mass free) spacetime around the visible Universe, if such a scenario would be possible?

1. There is no reason to think that the universe is empty beyond the observable universe.

2. We cannot observe anything outside the observable universe. By definition.

1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

An imagined hypothetic scenario and experiment: 

I think you should get o grips with current science before making up nonsense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FreeWill said:

How would you "observe" empty(energy and mass free) spacetime around the visible Universe, if such a scenario would be possible?

Empty spacetime is not limited by c. Only massive objects are limited to travel below c, and that is a measurement made from inertial frames. This objection is irrelevant to the claim.

4 hours ago, FreeWill said:

An imagined hypothetic scenario and experiment: 

Let's suppose that spacetime itself is responsible for the amount of energy a matter present in the Universe and that energy has a yet undetectably small amount of mass.  The evolution would look like: 

1, Empty spacetime starts to evolve with a rate of 90 billion km/s to all directions. 

2, When empty spacetime hit 90 billion km in diameter an electron appears exactly in the middle of this orb of empty spacetime with an extent of 300 000 km (to help to maintain the fabric of spacetime)

Why would conservation of energy be violated?

4 hours ago, FreeWill said:

3. The evolution of space continues by time and more and more electron appears, while their infinitely small mass keeps and pulls them together in the center until it reaches a critical amount collapses and matter appears.

Electrons are matter. 

4 hours ago, FreeWill said:

Hypothetically, with advanced technology, we would be able to create a 90 billion km big orb in the interstellar space (where the effect of the environment is the smallest), with a strong electromagnetic field around it to derail everthing what could step into our orb. We create an absolute vacuum in the orb and try to detect does something appears in it. 

No such thing as an absolute vacuum, and this, too, is not from a limit of technology.

4 hours ago, FreeWill said:

Let's assume that with technology developing, we are able to detect the infinitely small mass of an electron and create such an experiment.

If the scenario would be possible and electron(s) would appear in our experiment because we know the mass of the Universe we could calculate the exact size and age of the system, so even empty spacetime could never be observable with a telescope we could calculate its extent. Or if nothing appears we could determine that spacetime has nothing to do with the evolution of energy and matter. 

 

So even I can imagine such a technology supported experiment and physical scenario, (sadly) it is not possible....

I'm not sure what actual physics is involved in your little fantasy here, but any scenario that relies on violations of the laws of nature aren't viable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FreeWill a Universe with Absolute Infinite energy and mass would only be infinitely dense if the Universe had a finite volume. If the universe itself had an infinite volume, then that could counteract the density. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 11:58 AM, swansont said:

I'm not sure what actual physics is involved in your little fantasy here, but any scenario that relies on violations of the laws of nature aren't viable.

There is no mainstream physics in it, just a thought (logic based conclusion) that there should be a reason why energy is present in the system and a thought how would it eventually be possible. 

The energy conservation would not be violated even my little fantasy suggests that energy can be created by expanding spacetime (i.e electrons could pop in existence but could not disappear without a trace). 

Edited by FreeWill
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

No, the Mind can put things together that does not belong together in the laws of nature. For example, I can in my Mind pretend that I can fly to space without any help from technology.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
  • 4 months later...
On 9/20/2013 at 8:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true?

 

To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility.

 

The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction.

 

So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives.

 

People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set!

 

So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

 

So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.

 

This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.

Palpable entitlement and privilege.

You also use "logically" impossible/possible incorrectly. Which is ironic considering the mention of Math.

Seriously moderators can we have a logic section already so people can stop misusing the tool of logic like this? I can't even engage with this seriously due to this complete misunderstanding of what logic is. 

Basic logic skills are in serious need of overhaul in this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 9/20/2013 at 7:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots. 

Maybe, but then that was what Walt Disney said. Not sure if he would be considered a crackpot- racist maybe, but perhaps not a crackpot. Now, there was a time when his bankers DID worry that he may have been a crackpot. Until he proved them wrong. Sometimes it does take a crackpot. 

Edited by Phi for All
fixed quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.