ZVBXRPL Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) An infinite continuum of matter, where the concept of "empty space" does not exist The Universe has infinite energy The energy fluctuations of the Universe are the cause of all interactions and motion that occur in the Universe Motion is the result of energy transferring from one location to another and not as a result of matter transferring location Motion is not matter moving through a medium with that medium being empty space Motion is energy moving as a wave through a medium with that medium being the continuum of matter This is my theory, I try to keep it brief rather than rambling into an essay and have stated the main concepts of my theory I think/hope Edited February 7, 2014 by ZVBXRPL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This is my theory... You should present more details of your theory. So far it just looks like some very vague ideas thrown together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVBXRPL Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 You should present more details of your theory. So far it just looks like some very vague ideas thrown together. If I make it long, then I don't think people will bother to read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrushka.googol Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 May be you are alluding to the matter-wave theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 If I make it long, then I don't think people will bother to read it ! Moderator Note If you make it short it has no value, and also doesn't conform to the rules. How about some quantitative predictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 If I make it long, then I don't think people will bother to read it Just focus on some aspect of it if you have to, but right now we have nothing to discuss. Someone told me a couple of weeks ago that in a talk it is okay to leave out plenty of details and still give an understandable talk, but you must not leave out all the details! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheever Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It's consequential. Nothing new about it. Mass is the manifestation of two tendencies against each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Mass is the manifestation of two tendencies against each other ! Moderator Note Your own conjecture does not belong here. Limit it to its own thread here in speculations. This thread is for discussion of ZVBXRPL's idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) An infinite continuum of matter, where the concept of "empty space" does not exist The Universe has infinite energy The energy fluctuations of the Universe are the cause of all interactions and motion that occur in the Universe Motion is the result of energy transferring from one location to another and not as a result of matter transferring location Motion is not matter moving through a medium with that medium being empty space Motion is energy moving as a wave through a medium with that medium being the continuum of matter This is my theory, I try to keep it brief rather than rambling into an essay and have stated the main concepts of my theory I think/hope If it is of any use to you ZVBXRPL. During all these wind and floods hitting Devon and Cornwall where I live in England, a commentator on the television showed men in wet suits bobbing up and down in sea waves . Yet the waves were traveling at high speed into the sea walls with terrific Energy. He reasoned that these waves were moving ENERGY across the medium of the Sea , it really was not moving Water forward. The edge movement at the wall was because of change in depth of sea[medium] . So his conclusion was Waves are energy that moves across the sea. Out at sea The WATER goes Up and Down [ as the men in black suits showed. They just bobed up and down] note the second picture showed a boat bobbing up and down on the waves! These waves ,being caused mainly by wind blowing on vast reaches of sea . Mike Edited February 10, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 He reasoned that these waves were moving ENERGY across the medium of the Sea , it really was not moving Water forward. This is absolutely right. The waves are carrying energy forward but there is actually very little movement of the water horizontally. The currents are rather due to the tides than the waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Implicate Order Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) This is my theory, Interesting perspective. Your infinite state of continuum of matter provides a perfectly homogenous and unbounded commencement point, not too different from a viewpoint that 'nothing' is actually something. I am of a similar viewpoint that perhaps the notion of 'nothing' needs to be defined in terms of a 'something' as opposed to simple removal of all things in the definition to arrive at 'nothing'. That way it is far easier to commence the construction of a universe or multi-verse from this re-defined state, than having to explain how a 'thing' can arise from nothing or no...thing. I would probably seek however to adjust the description of this null state to remove any definitional context of discreet 'things' that could arise from this state such as 'mass'. In this way it is then possible to treat all 'things' arising from this state as emergent. An interesting metaphysical definition I have recently come across concerning 'nothing' is that perhaps what 'nothing' is in the sense of the fundamental state of this universe is a 'state of infinite, unbounded homogeneity'. While I struggle with the definition of infinite and perhaps would suggest a better term might be a timeless and spaceless quantum state (eg. a universal quantum wavefunction as in Everett's and Wheeler's definition or an Implicate Order as in Bohms definition), such a state provides a possible ideal extreme low entropy condition necessary for a classical universe to emerge and evolve according to entropic laws. From a purely relational viewpoint this blank, infinite and unbounded canvas prevents any relationship being drawn between it's contents. It is only when things emerge from this context with their own boundaries that we can then differentiate these things. Without these things the definition is nothing but probably different to most peoples view of what nothing should be. The traditional perspective of nothing is the absence of something which defines 'nothing' in terms of what it is not rather than in terms of what it is. This makes it extremely hard to then leap to how this universe arose from such a state. Using this definitional starting point of nothing it actually represents a 'state' that is able to be transformed into something else and possibly divided to offer a multi-verse solution. For example the end of our universe according to the popular 'heat death' notion is one of a trend towards an equilibrium state of homogeneity in spacetime which may or may not be bounded or unbounded dependent on topology or finite or infinite in extent. This commencement state however is the antithesis of this definition in that space-time is a 'thing' as are the universal contents of 'things' and represent an emergent state arising from this foundational principle. Blend all the contents of the universe and remove all boundaries and you commence with an unbounded infinite homgenous state which is just a different configuration of those states. The different states are then able to be transformed into each other. A very useful foundation stone for a universal construction. Starting from this state you are then better equipped to interrogate the next question that arises in respect to what caused the change from this state into that which we classically observe today. I can see from your definition that you have had a good crack at attempting to answer this question, but I can't get a grasp on 'why' there is any motion in your universe to begin with given your foundation stone of an infinite continuum of mass. What causes the initial energy displacement from this infinite energy condition through this foundation of yours in the absence in this state of any space-time to get the ball rolling? Your definition does not provide any degrees of freedom for energy displacement or am I missing something? I would be interested to see how you proceed from this point as I am struggling myself and seem to get into self-referential knots when I progress from here. Edited February 12, 2014 by Implicate Order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVBXRPL Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 Interesting perspective. Your infinite state of continuum of matter provides a perfectly homogenous and unbounded commencement point, not too different from a viewpoint that 'nothing' is actually something. I am of a similar viewpoint that perhaps the notion of 'nothing' needs to be defined in terms of a 'something' as opposed to simple removal of all things in the definition to arrive at 'nothing'. That way it is far easier to commence the construction of a universe or multi-verse from this re-defined state, than having to explain how a 'thing' can arise from nothing or no...thing. I would probably seek however to adjust the description of this null state to remove any definitional context of discreet 'things' that could arise from this state such as 'mass'. In this way it is then possible to treat all 'things' arising from this state as emergent. An interesting metaphysical definition I have recently come across concerning 'nothing' is that perhaps what 'nothing' is in the sense of the fundamental state of this universe is a 'state of infinite, unbounded homogeneity'. While I struggle with the definition of infinite and perhaps would suggest a better term might be a timeless and spaceless quantum state (eg. a universal quantum wavefunction as in Everett's and Wheeler's definition or an Implicate Order as in Bohms definition), such a state provides a possible ideal extreme low entropy condition necessary for a classical universe to emerge and evolve according to entropic laws. From a purely relational viewpoint this blank, infinite and unbounded canvas prevents any relationship being drawn between it's contents. It is only when things emerge from this context with their own boundaries that we can then differentiate these things. Without these things the definition is nothing but probably different to most peoples view of what nothing should be. The traditional perspective of nothing is the absence of something which defines 'nothing' in terms of what it is not rather than in terms of what it is. This makes it extremely hard to then leap to how this universe arose from such a state. Using this definitional starting point of nothing it actually represents a 'state' that is able to be transformed into something else and possibly divided to offer a multi-verse solution. For example the end of our universe according to the popular 'heat death' notion is one of a trend towards an equilibrium state of homogeneity in spacetime which may or may not be bounded or unbounded dependent on topology or finite or infinite in extent. This commencement state however is the antithesis of this definition in that space-time is a 'thing' as are the universal contents of 'things' and represent an emergent state arising from this foundational principle. Blend all the contents of the universe and remove all boundaries and you commence with an unbounded infinite homgenous state which is just a different configuration of those states. The different states are then able to be transformed into each other. A very useful foundation stone for a universal construction. Starting from this state you are then better equipped to interrogate the next question that arises in respect to what caused the change from this state into that which we classically observe today. I can see from your definition that you have had a good crack at attempting to answer this question, but I can't get a grasp on 'why' there is any motion in your universe to begin with given your foundation stone of an infinite continuum of mass. What causes the initial energy displacement from this infinite energy condition through this foundation of yours in the absence in this state of any space-time to get the ball rolling? Your definition does not provide any degrees of freedom for energy displacement or am I missing something? I would be interested to see how you proceed from this point as I am struggling myself and seem to get into self-referential knots when I progress from here. In this infinite continuum of matter universe, there is no empty space/void/nothingness, there is only something and not something and nothing Infinite macrocosm and infinite microcosm In an infinite universe, there is no beginning, no cause and no initial point, the ball has always been moving and will never stop moving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Implicate Order Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Thanks for the response ZVBXRPL. Interesting perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVBXRPL Posted June 28, 2014 Author Share Posted June 28, 2014 Hope others may share their thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Can you show numerically how your idea predicts the observations that indicate that the universe has been through at least one stage of rapid expansion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfbag Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 A universe limited in size seems crazy for what lies outside its walls. An infinite universe is also crazy because infinite goes forever in all directions, and that is too much. So there is no sane answer to us as a species... yet. I rationalize it by thinking of it as either real or unreal and that we are collapsing light to suit our expectations as a group, but any way we look at it would seem insane for the present. Even the Big Bang Theory proposes the entire Universe exploded out of basically nothing. Ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous. That is what we can think of here on our best days. It's a bizarre topic no matter how you think the Universe exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrushka.googol Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 My own viewpoint on this is as follows - the Universe is not necessarily a continuum of matter. There could be a large void in space beyond the most distant observable mass (much like land masses that cover the earth which is 70% water). If water could be equated with a void it does not imply that space is defined by landmasses alone. It exists beyond solid physical reality. I see the Universe as analogous to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) here is the problem I see with the model, that the universe being a continuum of matter An infinite continuum of matter, where the concept of "empty space" does not exist The Universe has infinite energy The energy fluctuations of the Universe are the cause of all interactions and motion that occur in the Universe Motion is the result of energy transferring from one location to another and not as a result of matter transferring location Motion is not matter moving through a medium with that medium being empty space Motion is energy moving as a wave through a medium with that medium being the continuum of matter This is my theory, I try to keep it brief rather than rambling into an essay and have stated the main concepts of my theory I think/hope the average density is extremely close to the critical density, observational measurements agree with this [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] [latex]\rho[/latex] =energy-density [latex]G\ =\ 6.673(10)\ \times\ 10^{-11}\ m^{3} kg^{-1} s^{-2}[/latex] [latex]c\ =\ 2.99792458\ \times\ 10^{8}\ m\ s^{-1}[/latex] H0 using roughly 72 km/s/Mpc so if you do the calculations this works out to a mass density of 10-26 kg/m3 or 9*10-10 joules/m3 this low of an energy-density would work out to be roughly 5 hydrogen atoms per m3 please note this calculation I did some rounding off, but your answer should be within the same degree of magnitude sounds to me like a lot of empty area. and Hubble constant today varies from WMAP to planck data so I used an older value last article I read has it at roughly 69 km/s/Mpc The 1% Concordance Hubble Constant http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.1718v1.pdf this is the latest constraint I'm aware of, the above from one of my notes, for an article I am updating for my website it covers the cirtical density an universe geometry, I was looking to update some aspects of the article http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 covers the FLRW metric in terms of distance measurements http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ however if you want a more professional reference covering the above http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellidohttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgueshttp://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Lindehttp://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis these articles are handy to teach cosmology and each article covers how the critical density parameter is determined, the last article is particularly handy as a supplement to Scott Dodelson's Modern cosmology second edition as he uses the same calculations for the thermodynamic history of the universe this is the problem of trying to give us your model without the supportive math, someone like me can come along and show you math that will argue against it, so I would like to see how your model works in terms of the mathematics and observational support the last article will supply the mathematical tools in terms of how to derive the number of particles for any type of particle from the temperature of the universe see chapter 3,4 and 5 you should be able to for example calculate the number of photons from the CMB as a temperature contributor for example. After all any good model requires the necessary mathematical support or its meaningless and as this is your model its up to you to show that mathematical support in terms of how the universe expands here is the FLRW acceleration equation the Hubble law shows the proportionality between distance and recession velocity. Hubble law the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity [latex]V_{recessive}=H_OD[/latex] Accelerated expansion means that the scale factor "a" increases accelerated, which is the case if the second derivative of "a" with respect to time is positive. According to the Friedmann acceleration equation [latex]H^2 = \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho - \frac{kc^2}{a^2}\dot{H} + H^2 = \frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = - \frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex] the second derivative of "a" is proportional to[latex]- \left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex].That shows how the amount of energy density and pressure determines the expansion of the universe by the way we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite even with our measurements showing the universe as being close to flat, the universe could be so large its like an ant sitting on a balloon (it will appear to be flat) Our universe can still be finite, with a finite amount of energy. here is a recent paper arguing that the universe could be closed http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7860 we do have good estimates for the amount of energy is in the observable universe, here is the energy budget http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory" The energy fluctuations of the Universe are the cause of all interactions and motion that occur in the Universe I assume your referring to the cosmological constant in this portion, so yes it does contribute to the expansion dynamics there is enough detail above that going into further detail would just add confusion. See the above articles . the cosmological constant is represented by [latex]\Lambda[/latex] this one in particular has a good coverage http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY" you'll note her energy density per m3 is a little different but they normalized the Hubble parameter at 100 km/s/Mpc equation 14 page 4 equation 10 is the energy conservation equation which includes the cosmological constant the equations of state for the cosmological constant and the other contributors matter ,radiation etc is on page 5 equations 16 and 17 of alternative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 that should be more than enough information for one post (might be a bit excessive already, my apologies if it is but I'm bored lol) Edited June 28, 2014 by Mordred 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepak Kapur Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 'a continuum of matter'.....?? imo, continuum means something that has no points in it.....but.....continuum of matter presupposes points ( matter at every point.......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Deepak - there is long thread in which Peter J and I discuss the meaning of continuum. I will try and find it - Peter had some good references from Weyl if I remember correctly http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73774-the-field-as-continuum-split-from-how-does-a-higgs-field/ Hopefully it is as good an exchange as I remember Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deepak Kapur Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 @ imfatlaal a good thread.....learnt a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 What about a gross speculation: Space between cosmic bodies, filled with particles that possess anti-gravity property ? This space hold cosmic bodies divided and afloat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 What about a gross speculation: Space between cosmic bodies, filled with particles that possess anti-gravity property ? This space hold cosmic bodies divided and afloat. ! Moderator Note This thread is for discussing ZVBXRPL's speculation that the universe is a continuum of matter. Advance or question that specific speculation, or refute it with mainstream science. Those are your only options. Independent speculation, gross or otherwise, belongs in its own thread. Do not respond to this modnote in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfbag Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) @ ZVBXRPL Motion is the result of energy transferring from one location to another and not as a result of matter transferring location Motion is not matter moving through a medium with that medium being empty space Motion is energy moving as a wave through a medium with that medium being the continuum of matter Just ignore if this is off base, but in your construct does motion make matter. I read a Theory that sounded similar where the Author suggested a Spider Web could cut a diamond if it was moving fast enough, and the idea behind it is that we are in constant motion, and that motion creates matter. It sounded similar enough I thought I'd refer you to it if it is what you are trying to say. Edited July 15, 2014 by barfbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVBXRPL Posted December 26, 2014 Author Share Posted December 26, 2014 @ ZVBXRPL Just ignore if this is off base, but in your construct does motion make matter. I read a Theory that sounded similar where the Author suggested a Spider Web could cut a diamond if it was moving fast enough, and the idea behind it is that we are in constant motion, and that motion creates matter. It sounded similar enough I thought I'd refer you to it if it is what you are trying to say. I would answer by saying that "we" as human beings, make matter by observing it and labelling it, just as we assign labels for everything to try to understand the world and Universe around us. The Universe as a continuum of matter is the same as Universe as a continuum of energy, the key point is continuum, everything is connected and there is no empty space, the concept of empty space onlly exists in the human mind. Energy and Matter are one and the same, it is just a label. When we walk across the room or drive a car, we asume that we are moving as a bundle of matter through empty space, bumping into other bundles of matter of varying sizes. I am saying that this is an illusion and our brain just interprets our movement in that way. What is really happening is that the energy level in one part of the universe is moving to a different part of the universe and all motion in the universe happens this way. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, energy and matter are one and the same. The Universe is an infinte continuum of this energy/matter, with no empty space and all motion is energy tranferring from one location to another. If you break down "matter" into small enough pieces you eventually get, what is labelled "not matter". This is our brain putting a limit on what we call "matter". It is all the same, just at different energy levels. We are only aware of the energy levels that are within our realm of observation, we cannot imagine 1000s levels lower or higher into the microcosm or macrocosm, so we just call what we are aware of "matter" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts