Not to mention dwarf stars that suck in mass into a very rapid spin, until they reach a certain limit and explode.

I think gravity is not so much a property of mass, but an effect of energy collapsing into mass and then into ever denser concentrations of it. When mass turns to energy, it releases pressure, so wouldn't energy collapsing into mass create a vacuum? They can't find dark matter, but there is excesses of cosmic rays in the perimeters of galaxies and those stars on the perimeters tend to be light in metals.

Hi Jason,

if space-time is the output of data processing, as I'm sure it must be, then the stuff that it is made of is the same stuff as the things in it. That is to say if it is electrical activity in the brain or computer that is making things apparent then it is also fabricating the spaces between. So too for wave functions, as theoretical things they can be thought about or written.

Niels Bohr said "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description."

Information is distributed in uni-temporal space though and the many possibilities that might be observed become the one observation that is made through observer participation. That's not Many Worlds becoming one macroscopic world but only persisting data from what was, being selected and formed into an image reality, (space-time) manifestation output.

What is space made of? is a different question. Seems to be called the Higgs field nowadays. I only understood what that meant when I saw a Higgs particle being referred to as the quantum of ubiquitous resistance. I really don't mind what it is called, its that something rather than empty vacuum.

Hi Georgina,

I don't think space-time is the output of data processing (e.g. 1's and 0's). I think space-time and the quantum vacuum are made out of something that is clearly beyond human experience. If I said it was aetheric and spirit-like, that would simply mean that I can't touch it or confine it, yet it has properties (c, h, G...) and does things like produce standard model particles and gravity. Do you know why physics is a "solve the boundary conditions" kind of process? Because I honestly think there is a ghostly -like phenomenon that pops into existence that satisfies the physical boundary conditions. This ghostly like phenomenon allows particles and space-time geometry to exist. Such a phenomenon is dynamic to changing boundary conditions. The wave-function and particle wave duality give us a good idea that this must be how physics is manifesting. So it wouldn't be stacked E8 hyperspheres. And it's not nothingness. Nor is it the manifestation of logic as quantum mechanics kind of scoffs at logic.

John,

I have to think about it.

The universe is a big place. There is a good likelihood that we're not the only intelligent lifeforms out there. What are the chances of there being an intelligent species that figured out how the laws of physics are implemented? Why the physics constants are what they are? Could such an advanced civilization exceed the speed of light?

If science cannot explain how the laws of physics are implemented, then, whether you like it or not, whether you are atheists or not, you are subject to the laws of the Creator, the laws of God.

Georgina, Jason,

Why not at least consider how some of the agreed on points might fit together?

Einstein argued the contraction of mass points under the influence of gravity is a collapse of space. To balance this effect, so the universe doesn't contract to a point, he added the cosmological constant. While this was rejected when other galaxies were discovered to be redshifted, it has ben resurrected by redshift not matching basic Big Bang theory. So we say the galaxies are moving apart because the space inbetween them is expanding. Yet it seems to be forgotten that galaxies are actually contracting space and according to both theory and measurement by COBE and WMAP that these are closely balanced, resulting in overall flat space.

Yet because it is now a given that the universe began at a primordial point and expanded out since, there is no consideration of how these matching effects of expansion and contraction might most effectively fit in a larger cycle.

With all the attention given to symmetries, you would think this most obvious and evident relationship would get some consideration, but not if it conflicts with any ideas careers are built on.

"Yet because it is now a given that the universe began at a primordial point and expanded out since, there is no consideration of how these matching effects of expansion and contraction might most effectively fit in a larger cycle."

John, Georgina,

Gravity and anti-gravity most definitely deserve some attention. If we could manipulate gravity, we would resolve the energy problems of the world. But that's not what science does. Science is an institution for promoting cynicism and anti-God/anti-hope rhetoric. The idea that scientists would try to figure out how the laws of gravity are implemented is utterly beyond their cynical point of view.

It would serve the needs of the world if the money allocated for scientific research was spent on buying lollipops for the children of the world. According to science, things like honor, integrity, love, virtue, goodness and sacredness do not exist and are not worthy of our efforts.

Jason,

Now you are getting a little cynical about science. Why? Because it also has its pluses and minuses. Just like many things, it gets trapped in it own feedback loops. The current contest is a good example of how it is falling into the same deconstructionist loop, as it goes from information about reality, to information is reality, that swallowed philosophy. Then those who may try to break out of the cycle get accused of not being purists, failure of nerve, not "getting it," etc. for questioning the direction the crowd has gone.

It is in many ways, a gravitational contraction and the only thing that can escape gravity is energy and light.

Simple question: what is the natural process that sets the physics constants like c, h, G, etc...

If you don't know, then maybe God picked them?

John,

I'm cynical about science because it's hard for me to emotionally grasp the fact that science is an imcomplete description of reality. In a debate about evidence and what can be measured, science crushes religion, spirituality and values. I was raised as a spiritualist and a Theosophist. It is those values that give me hope and a reason to behave acceptably. But as science and atheism destroy the synaptic pathways of my beliefs, there is nothing to stop me from being rude to my neighbors and my loved ones. If there is no God, no purpose to life, no meaning, no value, then "brotherly love" and basic human decency deteriorate. I can't go 24 hours without hearing some disparaging remark about the religious life or having a relationship with God or believing in UFO's. I was very rude to an elderly lady, this morning, because my beliefs and values are being destroyed by scientism. Have you ever noticed that famous psychics and mediums like John Edwards and Silvia Brown try very hard to make people feel better about death (afterlife)? Whether they are in contact with something real or are merely creating the illusion of hope, they are giving happiness and joy to people. In contrast, there are intellectual snobs, trolls and rotten people who disparage the whole subject because it doesn't give scientific evidence or "information content".

And while scientism is spreading its "spiritual disease", physicists are ignoring, ignoring, ignoring the existence of unseen and unmeasureable phenomenon such as wave-functions.

Jason,

I have to say, I decided a very long time ago, that I would be the person I want me to be and it had nothing to do with any organized religious ideas. It doesn't mean I'm any kind of saint. It just means that, for better or worse, I'm honest with myself. I realize that most people become indoctrinated into cultural systems long before they are in a position to question them, while I was able to juggle various worlds enough to find some space of my own. The fact is there is no list of absolute good and bad. It really is a matter of being able to sense what you should do and working toward it, even if it doesn't always seem to make sense. A God would have to be an absolute, but absolute is basis, not apex. It is the essence from which we rise, not some ideal from which we fell. When you really learn to connect and combine that essence within yourself and within others, it will be an adventure, rather than a destination. There will always be sorrow, but it is a consequence of loss and in order to gain anything, you have to be willing to accept that you may lose it. Pain is the price you must pay for being able to feel in the first place.

John,

I am a spiritualist, Theosophist and a new ager. I would like to have some kind of spiritual relationship with God/Jesus. But to tell you the truth, there are aspects to that religion that I can't stand. I can't acheive a religious high by stepping on gays & lesbians. I don't want to have to steal someone else's freedom so that I can have a feeling of joy or peace of mind.

What I do is different. I can get a spiritual high by contemplating the existence of UFO's, space-aliens, and some intergalactic community of technically and spiritually advanced worlds. Unfortunately, the physics constants are not cooperating. The physics constants are definitely a buzz kill for me and my spiritual high. So I've thought a lot about this. What does an advanced alien race have to do to overcome the speed of light restriction, so that they can reach earth, abduct humans and do what aliens do?

Answer: They really have to figure out how the laws of physics and the physics constants are being implemented, so that they can change those values. I keep trying to suggest this physics forums, but this stuff is significantly more advanced than what science can do now. So does this make me nuts? Or does the physics community have to explain why the physics constants are what they are?

Jason,

It reminds me of an old line by Richard Bach, "Argue your limitations and they are yours." If you are looking for freedom and want to find it by escaping the planet, you are banging your head against a very hard wall. Maybe you should start questioning why you chose that goal. I used to be equally fascinated by such technical means, but eventually found the boring stability I wished to escape to be the illusion. Now it seems I'm mostly doing my best just to maintain some sense of sanity and stability. An analogy I use is that when you are young, you think of the seasons as summer and winter, because you are pushing the boundaries, but when you get older, it is spring and fall, because you are seeking balance. Put this in terms of the scalar vs the vector of time and temperature. So often we think in linear terms, one thing after another. Yet the larger dynamic is more expansion/contraction. In technology, everyone is looking for the next big thing, as though it were a linear leap ahead, while the cumulative process is bunches of similar advances, supporting one another. I think too much of our physics is trying to plot out these linear progressions, particles, trajectories, collisions, super symmetric particles to balance, strings, etc. I think when we finally sit there scratching our heads as to why there is nothing beyond standard model, we have to begin to sense all the connective tissue that is very much there, the waves, etc. but doesn't leave such clear distinct signals. When we can get beyond all this physical quantization, then maybe we might start to get beyond the spiritual atomization.

It won't be about escaping the planet, but finally understanding it as a whole. We have a bit more banging our head against the wall though.

John,

When Stephen Hawking declares that no God is needed to create the universe, he is mistaken for the following reasons. There is no reason why anything at all should suddenly, magically, pop into existence. If the universe was made out of superstrings or m-branes or E8 spheres or something else, then one can always ask: where did these superstrings or m-branes or E8 sphere come from? How did they get their properties? How did they get their physics constants? If universes could just pop into existence for no apparent reason, then physicists would be wizards and Stephen Hawking would hold the Elder Wand. And I would be a magical pink unicorn.

Jason,

I'm not Hawking and while I only see the need for physical cause for physical effect, the issue of consciousness needs some deeper explanation, I make the effort to try to understand how and why you see the world the way you do. What I want to know is why you cannot understand why I see the whole expanding universe theory as complete nonsense. Nothing personal, but I have the same problem with most of the people here and cannot understand why. Even when I point out to those who might have some powers of reason that have not been completely drowned in rote memory that arguing space is a measurement, that intergalactic space expands and that the measure of intergalactic space remains stable is complete and utter nonsensically contradictory stupidity, it just doesn't seem to register. I feel like I'm running around trying to shake some life back into zombies. Religious fundamentalists have nothing on cosmologists when it comes to unshakable faith.

John,

Are you saying that the expansion of the universe doesn't make sense? Why wouldn't it expand? 14 billion years ago, the universe started out the size of a pea. Now it's really really big. According to Hubble's law, galaxies are redshifting away from us as a linear function of their distance. That sort of implies that they're moving away from us. And why wouldn't they move away from us? The universe exploded into existence.

Jason,

Have you really followed the evolution of this theory, or do you assume it is just factual? It's based on two observations and various patches to explain observations that don't agree with theory. First off, it is to explain why the light of distant galaxies is redshifted, since it is assumed they travel as point particles and the only way to redshift would be for the source to recede. Yet why would light travel as a point particle and not expand out as waves when released, with the point being a function of its absorption by atomic structure? It has no internal attractive force to hold it together. Here is an interesting explanation for how light would be redshifted as a sample of a wavefront.

Another reason given is that it explains the cosmic background radiation as residue of the initial stage, but if light is simply redshifted by distance, this radiation would be the solution to Olber's paradox, the issue of why the entire sky is not light from ever more distant sources in an infinite universe.

The reason why the issue I raise is important is because redshift is directly proportional to distance, so if it is a conventional expansion IN space, this would mean we are at the exact center of the universe. So the idea is that it is an expansion OF space and every point is the center of its view of the universe. Yet if space is a stable medium, as implicit in a stable speed of light, this doesn't work, as space is not "expanding," as measured by the speed of light.

Then there is inflation, dark energy and dark matter, all major fudge factors to explain why observation and theory don't match. Usually when the observation doesn't match the theory, you reconsider the theory, not just accept that 90% of the universe is invisible and it all expanded out to many times its visible size in a fraction of a moment. If redshift is an optical effect, ie. a function of light expanding to fill space, there is no need for dark energy to explain why the rate of expansion doesn't match prediction. If what we have is a cosmic cycle of expanding energy and collapsing mass, there is no need for inflation to explain why the background radiation is so smooth. It might simply be due to a phase transition level at 3.7k, above which quantum particles start to coalesce out of this radiation. Sort of like a dew point. As for dark matter, is gravity simply a property of mass, or is it an effect of this energy condensing into mass, creating a vacuum?

The fact is, that whatever the story, one shouldn't argue that space is what you measure with a ruler, then say intergalactic space expands, yet the ruler we use to judge it remains stable. If that was schoolwork, you would get a big fat F.

Well, we can't trust a simple ruler because general relativity messes with distance and time. Personally, I advocate that space-time itself is made out of the wave-functions of electromagnetic frequencies. I visualize that all possible E&M frequencies, wavelengths, and vectors have a wave-function that exists as some undetectable set of waves that stretch all across space. When the universe expands, these wave-functions expand like springs. If there happens to be a photon (quanta of energy) traveling at the speed of light along this wave-function, then the photon will naturally redshift because the wave-length of the wave-function is expanding because space-time is expanding because space-time is made out of wave-functions. Do you get what I mean? The universe expands because the big bang was an explosion (outward traveling) not an implosion. If space-time doesn't expand with it, then there will be patches of universe without any space-time in it (which we don't observe). Space-time has to expand because galaxies are flying apart. Since space time is made out of wave-functions, then the wave-functions have to increase their wave-length.

So I guess you agree that the universe is expanding. But you don't agree with the details like inflation theory and dark energy. Is that what you mean?

BTW, dark energy is just the gravitational effect of all this stuff we can't see at all. It's invisible.

Clearly the laws of physics are incomplete. If they were complete, then life would be fun and meaningful. Since life is so dreary and cynical, then something is missing. Life is supposed to be joyful.

Jason,

It isn't so much about the actual physics, as it is about the argument put forth contradicts itself.

Gravity is described as a contraction of space because the mass points used as measurement draw together.

The argument for redshift being due to the actual, physical recession of the source is basic doppler effect. For example, if the train moving away has a lower pitched whistle, it isn't because space is being stretched, but because the distance is increasing. Space that was in front of the train is now behind the train, as it moves through space. This effect wouldn't be detectable if space was actually being stretched, because the reference is increasing as well. The railroad tracks, the air, the light would all be stretching.

So lets accept space is what you measure, but the problem here is that light doesn't remain a point when it is released, it expands like gas to fill the space and so space, as measured by light, expands, just as space, as measured by mass, contracts.

So we have these galaxies that are gravitational vortices, drawing mass into them, as well as the measurements defined by this mass. They then radiate out enormous amounts f light, radiation and other forms of cosmic rays, that can travel as far as at least 12 billion lightyears on the visible spectrum, possibly much further on the infrared. So what we have are these cycles of expanding radiation and contracting mass. The reason they balance out is because they are two sides of the same cycle.

Since the light eventually contracts back down into mass, the "dark matter" is actually the contraction due to the light effectively "gluing" everything together. Remember the reason for proposing it is because the whole galaxy spins relatively evenly across the whole diameter, when it would seem the center has much more mass and would therefore spin faster, so what is needed is some attractive force holding it together, most likely electrostatic in nature, the "light" as glue. Your "unseen wave functions."