/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4638094]

If space can be bent then it is not nothing.
Or am i missing something here?

[Anonymous No.4638109]

You are missing the fact that you have no point because it is space, it is called space and if people assumed it was nothing, they would call it nothing, but they know it is a thing, a thing with a name and unique properties, that name is space... not nothing and there are volumes of books describing its properties.

[Anonymous No.4638115]

>>4638109
>sent here from a link in /b/
>link said my mind would be blown
>OP getting owned

>mind
>blown

[Anonymous No.4638117]

>>4638109
Isn't "space" short for "empty space"?

[Anonymous No.4638128]

>>4638117
I have an empty box. Is the empty box nothing?

[Anonymous No.4638144]

>>4638128
Not a good analogy.
Unless the universe had some kind of shell (the cardboard) encasing the whole thing.

Troll from /b/? I'll just tell ya now -- i really just wanted to post that pic on /b/, and also had this thread going.
I don't consider myself an expert on these matters, and the "mind blown" wording was... well if it happened cool, if not, i don't give a fuck.

Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.4638157]

>>4638144
You're missing the point. The geometry of spacetime is dependent on the energy-momentum distribution within it. It plays an active role in the universe, and isn't just some empty stage on which events occur.

[Anonymous No.4638167]

Spacetime is based on conventional talk. It's a mathematical way of talking about physical properties, it doesn't exists by and in itself.

[Anonymous No.4638188]

>>4638167
Define "exist." People always like to spout some bullshit like "time/space doesn't really exist" or "it's just an illusion." They never really bother to define what they mean by "exist."

[Anonymous No.4638202]

>>4638188
define "definition".
bitch

[Anonymous No.4638212]

Define "set" and "define"

[Anonymous No.4638222]

>>4638202
"definable in first-order set theory" is not definable in first-order set theory

[Anonymous No.4638234]

>>4638188
I'm saying time itself doesn't have a discrete existence like we think light does. We judge time by its effects and describe it using mathematical convention. But what we are doing is calling this "possibility of irreversible change" as if it has a discrete, palpable existence. It doesn't. It's a way of talking about physical reality, it's not something discrete and measurable like the volume of a liquid mass.

Once we name something, our minds tend to reify that concept into something concrete. I think it's a mistake in the case of time.

[Anonymous No.4638261]

>>4638234
MAYBE you are the one drawing an arbitrary line between "concrete" and non "concrete" stuff when actually space and light are both stuff with properties.

Also

>planck time

[Anonymous No.4638266]

>>4638234
Time is what's measured on clocks. It no more "doesn't exist" than does a photon. Photons are also described using a mathematical convention, and spacetime may very well be discrete. The passage of time varies with velocity and location, as does the measurable attributes of a photon, i.e. energy, frequency, momentum, etc.

I see no reason to think of time as any less "real" than a photon.

[Anonymous No.4638299]

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-function-reality.html

>“Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system's wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.”

[Anonymous No.4638302]

Free will does not exist or at least womens does not have it, see this piece of shit? It is used by millions of womens everyday while it has no fucking practical purposes except a symbolic one (the one they give to it, a mental construction), build up by causality, all that is made up from a complex series of social construct as well i guess as a base biological construct (how the geometry is done and what does it 'mean'), if free will existed womens could just simply stop using this kind of shit and use many kind of shitty stuff like dick shaped shoes or whatever of all sort, they don't come up with this alone, they copies.

How did i came up with this? I hate these shoes due to their evocations plus i worship reason so i hate useless shit like this, i post there because nobody would hear shit like this in real, that is why, and now i give my hate a constructed reason.

We would go too wild if we had real free will, there is always constraints, was it mental or physical, we don't come up with something at random, choices are determined.

[Anonymous No.4638304]

>>4638302
mfw i thought i made a whole thread, at least this enforce the thought

[Anonymous No.4638305]

>>4638302
>butthurt liberal detected

[Anonymous No.4638306]

>>4638234
how is a second not a discrete interval of time and since when did we stop having the ability to measure seconds?

[Anonymous No.4638325]

>>4638302
>I'm a sandal-wearing hippie

[Anonymous No.4638328]

>>4638306
>how is a second not a discrete interval of time

Do you even know what discrete means? It means 1.5 seconds would have no meaning.

[Anonymous No.4638333]

Semantics

Nothing but semantics

[Anonymous No.4638345]

Exactly, the same way I make you bend, cause you are nothing.

[Anonymous No.4638348]

>>4638261
>>4638266
Well, we could do a thought experiment. Would there be time in a motionless universe? Would there be time in an universe in which causality cannot be described or inferred?

Our concept of time is based on the possibility of describing irreversible causal relations, but time itself doesn't have a substance separate from the behaviours of the particles we study and describe. Does time ever determine the behaviour of a particle or do we infer time from its behaviour? I think it's the latter is true. The fact that we can instantiate different "moments" of a behaviour of a particle in language helps us describe time metonymically, using symbols and graphics to represent these differences. But we would never think time is something measurable in the first place if our memory and perception wouldn't think the world is never the same each "new" moment. The fact that our minds perceive change as irreversible and new made this time-measuring mentality possible.

If we had minds which perceived all change as similar (for example, by making each change in the world repeat itself infinitely), then we would have never thought there was something we should call time. We wouldn't even notice things are repeating themselves, since nothing would appear as change to our similarly-repeating minds.

[Anonymous No.4638363]

>>4638261
>>4638266
Well, we could do a thought experiment. Would there be time in a motionless universe? Would there be time in a universe in which causality cannot be described or inferred?

Our concept of time is based on the possibility of describing irreversible causal relations, but time itself doesn't have a substance separate from the behaviours of the particles we study and describe. Does time ever determine the behaviour of a particle or do we infer time from its behaviour? I think the latter is true. The fact that we can instantiate different "moments" of a behaviour of a particle in language helps us describe time metonymically, using symbols and graphics to represent these differences. But we would never think time is something measurable in the first place if our memory and perception wouldn't think the world is never the same each "new" moment. The fact that our minds perceive change as irreversible and new made this time-measuring mentality possible.

If we had minds which perceived all change as similar (for example, by making each change in the world repeat itself infinitely), then we would have never thought there was something we should call time. We wouldn't even notice things are repeating themselves, since nothing would appear as change to our similarly-repeating minds.

[Anonymous No.4638385]

>>4638328
Then 1.5 liters of liquid is just as meaningless.

[Anonymous No.4638387]

>>4638385
I'm pretty sure nobody ever stated that volume is a descrete quantity.

[Anonymous No.4638390]

>>4638387
see
>>4638234

[Anonymous No.4638392]

>>4638390
So OP is a faggot. As espected from /sci/.

The faggot who mentioned planck time is still more of a faggot, though.

[Anonymous No.4638477]

>>4638363

That was one of the most beautiful things I've read all day. Thank you, anon.

[Anonymous No.4638510]

>>4638363
Ok, so our minds are capable of perceiving time...what was your point again?

[Filosofer scientist linguist No.4638511]

>If space can be bent then it is not nothing.
>Or am i missing something here?

I just read an intro to relativity, and the author claimed that empty space wasn't just nothing for the same reason that u state. I'm not so sure yet.

[Anonymous No.4638532]

>>4638094

if you start with the notion that the cognitive understanding of the environment is limited by the scope of detection and the capabilities of the detector and its post-processors, then you might find that any "notion" of "space" and "time", especially one that is conventional, is likely imperfect, incomplete, or nothing to do with what actually is there

[Anonymous No.4640372]

>>4638511

All descriptions that utilize a space-time manifold distortion can be framed in terms of modified kinematic (or whatever) descriptions across an undistorted manifold.

It's often more convenient to express in terms of space-time bending, but that doesn't mean it's physically true. The same holds for the method of images, for example

[Anonymous No.4640426]

There was only 'nothing' prior to the big bang. Time and space itself came into existence after this event.

Space is a medium which can carry objects through it like liquids and gases. Time is another variable fixed within space itself.

My question is can we extract energy from space, and would that space cease to exist after we extracted said energy?

[Anonymous No.4640441]

It's filled with dark energy and matter and shit

[Anonymous No.4640448]

>>4638363
your hypotheticals lack possibility and are meaningless

There is no such thing as a universe without movement. Even at absolute zero, which can never be reached by the way, electrons still move.

[Anonymous No.4640452]

>>4640426
Space isn't like a well where you take water out and it just gets dry.

[Anonymous No.4640465]

Time is a concept you gumps, it doesn't exist. It's like a meter, its a convention used to measure. There isn't a "time", like there isn't a "meter", or a "liter". They are conventions, they don't exist. It's kinda the reason why YOU CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME. If you people stopped talking like it existed, then we'd have less children believing that you could do such a thing.

[Anonymous No.4640471]

>>4640465
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
>l2physics

[Anonymous No.4640479]

>>4640465
>Time is a concept you gumps, it doesn't exist.
"Matter" is just a concept, too.

Reality is just composed of compressed energy waves, anyway.

Also, the past is as real as the future is. If people stopped talking about the past like it existed, we wouldn't be dreaming of a future to begin with.

Whether the past "exists" or not, that doesn't matter. What's fascinating is that the belief that it exists is a fantastic survival mechanism.

[Anonymous No.4640483]

>>4640441

Can we extract dark energy?

>>4640452

Is space finite? Considering the universe is expanding, it's expanding into nothingness - so technically there is a boundary on the perimeter of the universe.

[Anonymous No.4640498]

>>4640483
>Is space finite?
Any attempts to observe the "Nothing" inherently make it part of the Universe.
It doesn't matter if there's a boundary to the Universe if you're never going to see it.

When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you

[Anonymous No.4640507]

>>4640498

Maybe that nothingness is just another universe contracting into the big crunch.

[Anonymous No.4640512]

>>4640483
Have you ever considered that the Universe isn't actually expanding, but instead, we're just shrinking?

When you're caught inside of a black hole, everything outside of the event horizon has the appearance of moving away faster than the speed of light. Everything "falling" in with you will appear normal, including time dilation and velocity. But the further away objects are from you, the more they will provide the impression of speeding away.

The Universe is not expanding. We're just compressing.

[Anonymous No.4640516]

>>4640507
Then it's not "nothing". And because you're now aware of its existence, it's now become a part of the Observable Universe.

[Anonymous No.4640545]

This thread..

[Anonymous No.4640592]

The question of "why is there something instead of nothing" seems to actually be two kinds of questions:

One: within some framework of physical laws that are flexible enough to allow for the possible existence of either stuff or no stuff (where “stuff” might include space and time itself), why does the actual manifestation of reality seem to feature all this stuff?

Two: why do we have this particular framework of physical law, or even something called “physical law” at all?

Physicists seem to focus on the first kind of question, philosophers on the second, but they can easily be interested in both. Some people like lawrence krauss think the second question has no real meaning. Others like, say, david albert, see the second question as being what needs to be addressed, whether it's answerable or not.

Personally, it feels like an unanswerable question because all seeming potential answers have to muck up the idea of causality in my mind, which is a big part of reasoning. To me, the idea that a "god" always existed and therefore never technically came to exist, but somehow exists nevertheless, requires the same kind of magic to make a "reality" come from nothing. The only difference being that a "god" is superfluous-- if you're gonna invoke magic, you might as well just eliminate the proxy and *poof* the universe into existence. This is when I start to sympathize with people like Krauss; our conception of causality doesn't quite work when we're dealing with the fabric of reality, in the same way that the concept of "position" doesn't work at the quantum scale. But who the fuck really knows... bleh