Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineDiaboleros
Devil's spawn

Registered: 07/20/08
Posts: 1,856
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: johnm214]
    #9606543 - 01/14/09 07:46 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Ok so massive objects suck in space. But if space is nothing. How can you suck in nothing? Shouldn't space be made out of something before it can get sucked in? I'm just wondering what this someting is... or is space really made out of nothing? Can someone answer me this with a yes or no? Is space made out of nothing?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Vacuum? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9606812 - 01/14/09 09:04 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

But if space is nothing.

There's your problem...

Space isn't "made of nothing". It is space-time...so it must be something.

What that something is, isn't known yet. There are some highly speculative ideas out there, unfortunately I don't know what they are (aside from the fact that they are highly speculative). I think Brian Greene wrote a thing or two about them in one of the later chapters to The Elegant Universe.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Vacuum? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9606849 - 01/14/09 09:15 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Disregard my post if you wish, it's long and trendal resumed it best while I was writing it. I still stand by the fact that we can ask what something is "made of" ad infinitum, so even if gravity comes from gravitons of some quantum field, then what is this quantum field "made of", etc. I suppose it all boils down to what is experimentally accessible and what is not.


It could be made out of invisible chocolate fudge and it wouldn't made a difference :wink: what is important is how it behaves.

The contemporary view of space is that it is a 4-dimensional Riemannian manifold, more about that later. Picture it as a 4-dimensional rubber sheet if you wish, but it is unimportant since only the laws of its behaviour really matter. Using analogies may be an interesting pedagogical tool or even a driving force between breakthroughs, but at the end it's only a conceptual aid to the thinking brain which you can ditch at no cost once one get to the core of a phenomenon.

As an example, Maxwell used analogies of subtle fluid flows and pressure while coming up with its four equations for electromagnetism, but soon recognized them as more obstructing than anything once the equations were in place and he sought to further push their study. He ditched the analogy and went on to work with the renewed intuition given by considering his equations as standing completely well by themselves without the need for background rationalizations, that only served to ease his mind, any more. It is always to be expected at first since one always work with what one knows and is comfortable with at the time, and what he had at first probably was a very mechanistic Newtonesque, day to day billiard-ball-collision and wet-fluid intuition. Nothing bad there, only one must outgrow his own flawed assumptions in the light of new empirical and theoretical realities.

Maxwell did, and upon pondering about Maxwell equations and inertial frames of reference, Einstein also did it and came up with special relativity, and did it a second time by pondering about the equivalence between forces and accelerated frames of reference and came up with general relativity, etc. Quantum mechanics tell a similar story, although many more people are involved.

So if you want to understand how gravity is understood these days by physicist working in the field, and also those physicist trying to discover new things and their ideas, you may use analogies about "what stuff is made of" like it is the case in everyday life (table made of wood, air made of oxygen and nitrogen molecules, river made of water, etc.), no problem, but eventually one also has to let go of these restricting assumptions in order to go on.

Water is made of molecules are made of atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons, etc, sure, but to think about what so and so is made of ad infinitum is restricting in itself when you realise that at the core of all this, given our contemporary understanding, it is energy and interactions and the laws in between only that are needed, such that casual concepts like particles, waves (both incomplete analogies) and stuff like that are unnecessary. When one hears about particle physics and the search for elementary particles, it is easy to think of them as little balls of stuff colliding and to ask what they are made of, but the questions are not ask that way when you understand that when a physicist use the word "particle", s/he use it in a very specific way that has nothing to do with the everyday usage. Blame the use of jargon. "Particles" are excitations with given energy of certain quantum fields that permeate the whole universe.

For now there's a profound divide between the accepted fundamental model of particle physics, that is the Standard model, which is based on the concept of quantum fields, known to be incomplete albeit being extremely successful at grasping almost all aspects of experiments in accelerators, and the fundamental model of gravity, that is general relativity, which we know is also incomplete, but that still explains a lot more than any other theory. There are anomalies, but it is as of yet unclear whether it has to do with unobserved and subtle secondary effect, defect of the theory itself, or both.

Now onto how gravity is currently understood. Since my post is already long, I recommend wiki's introduction to general relativity :P In short, there's the equivalence principle, bluntly the effect of a force is undistinguishable from looking from an accelerated frame of references, and the covariance of the laws of physics, that is coordinates do not exist in nature and the laws should be the same whether your "laboratory" is in the desert, in deep space, falling from the Eiffel tower or on Jupiter. Together they imposes one to see everything as going locally in straight line (everything is in free fall) and it is space-time, the causal structure between things, that globally curves the trajectory. Then there are Einstein field equations which relate the way matter tells space (space-time really) how to curve, and the way space (idem) tells matter how to move. They come from equating the most general covariant geometrical object (it is called the Einstein tensor) with one of several general way to express the matter content of space (it is called the stress-energy tensor). The presence of matter thus changes the causal relationship between things in its vicinity, the distances in space-time between events, such that even if something is freely falling, its trajectory will seem curved to another observer, as if it's pulled towards it and vice-versa.

That way, space-time and gravity is not currently understood as being "made of" something, as trendal said, but is considered as the implication of the presence of matter in the accepted causal framework of our universe.

Doesn't mean there isn't something which encompass all this though, so keep searching :smile:

And thank you for helping me procrastinate.

Edited by deimya (01/14/09 09:29 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDiaboleros
Devil's spawn

Registered: 07/20/08
Posts: 1,856
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: trendal]
    #9607191 - 01/14/09 10:44 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Yes a lengthy post, but very interesting, you seem to know your stuff.

Quote:

trendal said:
What that something is, isn't known yet. There are some highly speculative ideas out there, unfortunately I don't know what they are (aside from the fact that they are highly speculative). I think Brian Greene wrote a thing or two about them in one of the later chapters to The Elegant Universe.



Aha! That's what I wanted to know.. thanks for the answer.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Vacuum? [Re: deimya]
    #9607850 - 01/14/09 12:43 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Totally agree about the "who cares" part.  I was going to say the same thing about demons in atoms that just behave like our current model and proffer that it wouldn't matter so long as our predictions matched the model.


and beyond that, is it even real if we can't observe it?  It surely doesn't matter from a practical standpoint- even if our model isn't correct, if it gives the correct results it is just as good.  There could be complicated black boxes all over the place directing fundamental events and it wouldn't matter so long as our models and predictions mesh.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Vacuum? [Re: johnm214]
    #9607953 - 01/14/09 12:56 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

It seems to me the closer we bring a phenomenon to our senses, the closer we are to "accept" it as real. Each instrument between us and a phenomenon seems to bring another level of interpretation, so at the end what matters is how confident we are about correlations between each intermediate step.

Atoms where once only understood through pressure and temperature readings on some analogue gauges, but now, with atomic force microscope, we can create pretty pictures of crystalline lattice, show them to one's mom and pop and convince them of the "reality" of atoms much more easily.

At the end of the day, it is how much we succeed at relating to it with our senses. The margin of confidence must be made manifest in consideration that each other's mileage may vary.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: johnm214]
    #9608510 - 01/14/09 02:10 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah, my description isn't very good, but I find it difficult to explain without resorting to a rubber sheet with bowling balls on it. It's the only metaphor I know!


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetimmeh_87
Scientist
Male

Registered: 07/14/06
Posts: 157
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9609395 - 01/14/09 04:38 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Diaboleros said:
Ok so massive objects suck in space. But if space is nothing. How can you suck in nothing? Shouldn't space be made out of something before it can get sucked in? I'm just wondering what this someting is... or is space really made out of nothing? Can someone answer me this with a yes or no? Is space made out of nothing?




Still missing the point. Its just a metaphor, a big theory based on observations that has been explained in terms that your stupid little brain might be able to grasp. Nothing 'sucks in space', that dosent make sense. The answer to all your questions is "you cant". But you can imagine what it might look like, and it helps you to understand how it all works

Dont think for a second that anyone actually understand /why/ it all works. The entire field of quantum physics is basically made up.


--------------------
Shroom up my rating if you think Im smart :laugh:. I'll hit you back if you seem cool.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Vacuum? [Re: timmeh_87]
    #9609464 - 01/14/09 04:52 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

If my "made up" you mean made up of a rigorous theoretical framework and of experimental confirmations in the form of precision measurement with accuracies better than to 1 in ten millionth, and even in a trillionth (see for example QED precision experiment regarding the measurement of the fine structure constant and of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron), then I agree, but if, on the other hand, by "made up" you're rhetorically suggesting it's nonsense, then you might well just be much more full of shit than those you're pathetically trying to insult :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetimmeh_87
Scientist
Male

Registered: 07/14/06
Posts: 157
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: deimya]
    #9612294 - 01/15/09 12:23 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Im not questioning the ability of the current model to explain the things that have been accurately measured. But its just a model, and its easy to start to believe in little 'particles' called 'quarks' and 'strings' and stuff like that... its all just numbers on paper and cool "artist's impression" graphics in textbooks and on television.

Im way high btw... got some cp55940 today... anways peace.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Vacuum? [Re: timmeh_87]
    #9612350 - 01/15/09 12:41 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

But its just a model,...




I think strictly speaking thats true of all theories, since we can never really be privy to "reality".  All of our perceptions combine into abstract models to cope with sensory input, sometimes as a conscious construct like a scientific theory and sometimes as an intuition about the way things are.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Vacuum? [Re: DieCommie]
    #9612527 - 01/15/09 01:36 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Agreed, and that's kinda why I asked whether it even maters if its true.

Same thing with evolution vs intelligent design.  Whether or not evolution really happened and happens doesn't matter.  If its a useful model than teach it.  Tell the kids the truth: that there's no way to confirm reality anyways. 

I never got why people got so hung up on teaching that it IS the way things happened.  It fits obersvations and there's no way to prove or disprove it even to a less than mathmatical degree of certainty.  Its important even as a phenomenon.  Do the evolution people believe we shouldn't teach about the heliocentric vis geocentric theories?  I think its useful to learn about things that are considered false.

Just as no philosophy teacher should demand the students believe what they learn of various theories truths, so to should no biology teacher demand the students believe evolution happened. 

I think the whole debate is similar to this one: it is a helpful model and is a phenomena beyond its own accuracy- it is a valid thing to learn about and kids can believe what they want.  What I oppose is teaching kids the way things DID happen or ARE today.  No need for it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: timmeh_87]
    #9612572 - 01/15/09 01:54 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

timmeh_87 said:
Im way high btw... got some cp55940 today... anways peace.




WTF? I just looked it up. Is it... easy to get? Apparently it's unscheduled?


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePoiesis
Strangerer Than You

Registered: 01/09/09
Posts: 155
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9619894 - 01/16/09 08:55 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

This is not a science question.  I could refer to anything and ask "how can this exist?"  Science cannot answer this kind of question.  How can matter exist?  How can size exist?  How can radiation exist? 
What does that even mean?
Someone else nailed it when they said that it does not matter what something is made of but how it behaves.
Diaboleros, what is it about science that is "Western"?  That word seems like a pejorative term for describing science but I want to know what you think it means.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: Poiesis]
    #9622088 - 01/16/09 04:32 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Diaboleros, what is it about science that is "Western"?  That word seems like a pejorative term for describing science but I want to know what you think it means.



I, too would like to know. As far as I can tell, there is only one kind of science.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetimmeh_87
Scientist
Male

Registered: 07/14/06
Posts: 157
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
Re: Vacuum? [Re: zouden]
    #9622382 - 01/16/09 05:25 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Its as easy to get as any other RC.

TBH, you might as well just smoke a lot of pot if you cant find it. Its not much more exciting.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDepthToTheCore
JeeBuzz
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/05/04
Posts: 3,649
Loc: Australia brah Flag
Re: Vacuum? [Re: johnm214]
    #9622595 - 01/16/09 06:10 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Agreed, and that's kinda why I asked whether it even maters if its true.

Same thing with evolution vs intelligent design.  Whether or not evolution really happened and happens doesn't matter.  If its a useful model than teach it.  Tell the kids the truth: that there's no way to confirm reality anyways. 

I never got why people got so hung up on teaching that it IS the way things happened.  It fits obersvations and there's no way to prove or disprove it even to a less than mathmatical degree of certainty.  Its important even as a phenomenon.  Do the evolution people believe we shouldn't teach about the heliocentric vis geocentric theories?  I think its useful to learn about things that are considered false.

Just as no philosophy teacher should demand the students believe what they learn of various theories truths, so to should no biology teacher demand the students believe evolution happened. 

I think the whole debate is similar to this one: it is a helpful model and is a phenomena beyond its own accuracy- it is a valid thing to learn about and kids can believe what they want.  What I oppose is teaching kids the way things DID happen or ARE today.  No need for it.




Great post.

Especially the bolded part.


--------------------


"Those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music." - George Carlin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Nothing exists MushyMay 1,206 8 03/11/03 10:23 AM
by iconoclast
* Am I missing something? Or is the big bang bullshit?
( 1 2 3 all )
Flux 8,496 47 01/29/04 04:48 PM
by Shmoppy McGillicuddy
* Einstein & Newton Had Autism Jackal 587 1 05/01/03 09:56 AM
by Strumpling
* AIM....Nothing but Spyware... Le_Canard 2,773 9 03/08/04 03:32 PM
by Le_Canard
* Is a time machine possible?
( 1 2 all )
daba 4,607 28 12/08/03 12:43 PM
by cyrus
* String Theory and Quantum Physics.
( 1 2 all )
ergot 5,219 24 01/03/04 01:02 AM
by MarioNett
* The chem book I promised rommstein2001 8,040 4 10/01/03 07:52 PM
by Le_Canard
* Interesting read Pinhead 1,013 2 11/24/03 03:40 AM
by Demiurge

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
2,074 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 13 queries.