does everything have to be "physical" to exist.

[Syne]

As bizarre as it may seem, space itself is expanding - specifically, the vast regions of space between galaxies. According to Einstein, space is not simply emptiness; it's a real, stretchable, flexible thing and not just a model. In fact, understanding the properties and behavior of space is a major goal of modern physics.
The notion that space is expanding is a prediction of Einstein's theory of gravity, which describes a simple but universal relationship between space, time, and matter. But it was a prediction that Einstein didn't believe; in fact, he tried to modify his theory to get rid of it.
In the late 1920's, the astronomer Edwin Hubble first observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us, just as would be expected if the space between galaxies were growing in volume - and just as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. Since then, astronomers have measured this recession for millions of galaxies. But there's other evidence as well, the galaxies sit more or less passively in the space around them. As the space between galaxies expands, it carries the galaxies further apart - like raisins in an expanding dough.
Cheers.

No Einstein never said space was a "thing" of any sort. Spacetime is a model of interactions. The metric expansion of space is intrinsic, and can only be defined by energy and matter, as we cannot directly observe space itself as anything other than a relation of objects.

And your impromptu elementary history lesson does nothing to rebut the facts.

 

[Gravage]

No Einstein never said space was a "thing" of any sort. Spacetime is a model of interactions. The metric expansion of space is intrinsic, and can only be defined by energy and matter, as we cannot directly observe space itself as anything other than a relation of objects.

And your impromptu elementary history lesson does nothing to rebut the facts.

So models are not facts, right?
I'm quite surprised regarding your answer because the website I picked this up is not some crackpot website:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#m9

 

[Syne]

So models are not facts, right?
I'm quite surprised regarding your answer because the website I picked this up is not some crackpot website:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#m9

Models are convenient ways to handle complex interactions, but they should never be mistaken as implying anything physical beyond the empirical reality they model. It is no surprise that explanations aimed at laymen will necessarily be superficial enough to neglect making this distinction.

 

[Gravage]

Models are convenient ways to handle complex interactions, but they should never be mistaken as implying anything physical beyond the empirical reality they model. It is no surprise that explanations aimed at laymen will necessarily be superficial enough to neglect making this distinction.

Ok, big thanks for that, I'll have to remember this the next time I post.

 

[Gravage]

Models are convenient ways to handle complex interactions, but they should never be mistaken as implying anything physical beyond the empirical reality they model. It is no surprise that explanations aimed at laymen will necessarily be superficial enough to neglect making this distinction.

Here is the proof that space itself is not just a model (I'm not talking about space-time, I'm talking about just space itself), it has been directly proven to exist, see this documentary, hosted by Brian Greene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4U

"Illusion of time" hosted by Brian Greene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppWV4UM-_LY
Cheers.

 

[eram]

that annoying brian greene again. His programs are centered more on entertainment than education.

Efoc's question is kinda vague and difficult to discuss.


What we should be discussing is the Theory of Forms.

 

[Gravage]

that annoying brian greene again. His programs are centered more on entertainment than education.

Efoc's question is kinda vague and difficult to discuss.


What we should be discussing is the Theory of Forms.

And why wouldn't education be fun and accessible to laymen?
It shows physics and math can be much more interesting even to those who are not interested in physics and math.
Cheers.

 

[eram]

And why wouldn't education be fun and accessible to laymen?
It shows physics and math can be much more interesting even to those who are not interested in physics and math.
Cheers.

it can be. But brian greene's shows are full of special effects that are there to amuse audiences, and the knowledge that they take away is minimal. But i suppose thats what most american audiences want. Another annoying guy is michio cuckoo, who is full of technobabble and has even made several glaring mistakes.

A very good educational series is the Mechanical Universe, though a bit slow and boring.


Enough about that. Lets discuss the Theory of Forms. Plato was anti-experiment, and adoption of the theory of forms screwed up astronomy for a thousand years, till Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo and Kepler.

Still, its discussion addresses Efoc's original post. Do mathematical concepts really "exist"?

 

[Gravage]

it can be. But brian greene's shows are full of special effects that are there to amuse audiences, and the knowledge that they take away is minimal. But i suppose thats what most american audiences want. Another annoying guy is michio cuckoo, who is full of technobabble and has even made several glaring mistakes.

A very good educational series is the Mechanical Universe, though a bit slow and boring.


Enough about that. Lets discuss the Theory of Forms. Plato was anti-experiment, and adoption of the theory of forms screwed up astronomy for a thousand years, till Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo and Kepler.

Still, its discussion addresses Efoc's original post. Do mathematical concepts really "exist"?

I agree with Michio Kaku, this guy is horrible why do they even put him in the shows.
I have to ask you something: Is everything what Brian Greene said true in those documentaries?

 

[eram]

he talks a lot about string theory. While string theory has been theoretically successful, no experiment to prove it has been devised. As Glashow put it: "the theory is permanently safe"

 

[Gravage]

he talks a lot about string theory. While string theory has been theoretically successful, no experiment to prove it has been devised. As Glashow put it: "the theory is permanently safe"

That's true, but I meant on the documentaries I gave you links. He explained all so everyone can understand, they talked about Niels Bohr and Einstein duel, than quantum teleportation, than what is space, than what if the universe is like hologram (he explained that very, very good) and similar.

 

[eram]

well, quantum entanglement formed part of einstein's arguments that the universe is deterministic, not probabalistic. Since then, experiments have shown that bohr's interpretation of quantum entanglement have turned out correct. As for the holographic universe, that may just be fanciful thinking.

 

[Gravage]

well, quantum entanglement formed part of einstein's arguments that the universe is deterministic, not probabalistic. Since then, experiments have shown that bohr's interpretation of quantum entanglement have turned out correct. As for the holographic universe, that may just be fanciful thinking.

That's true. But if I understood holographic principle says this: let's suppose you throw a wallet in the black hole (which is 3-Dimensional), the information of this wallet would be stored just outside the event horizon of the black hole (2-dimensional), however all informations about this wallet and and all of its contents are stored. This gave theorists idea that entire universe might be just another hologram, working on this same principle. meaning all informations of entire universe, galaxies, space, time are stored on it's outside surface/"event horizon".
Correct me if I lost myself.
Second question? Is there any proof for such extreme idea?

Is there any proof for this holographic principle on the surface of the black hole, my problem here is how the information/informations of all objects and etc. that have fallen into a black hole are not absorbed into a black hole???
It doesn't make any sense does it?
Thanks.

 

[Buddha12]

Love isn't physical but most of us have had it.

 

[eram]

That's true. But if I understood holographic principle says this: let's suppose you throw a wallet in the black hole (which is 3-Dimensional), the information of this wallet would be stored just outside the event horizon of the black hole (2-dimensional), however all informations about this wallet and and all of its contents are stored. This gave theorists idea that entire universe might be just another hologram, working on this same principle. meaning all informations of entire universe, galaxies, space, time are stored on it's outside surface/"event horizon".
Correct me if I lost myself.
Second question? Is there any proof for such extreme idea?

Is there any proof for this holographic principle on the surface of the black hole, my problem here is how the information/informations of all objects and etc. that have fallen into a black hole are not absorbed into a black hole???
It doesn't make any sense does it?
Thanks.

i really dont know what the physical interpretation of information is. to me, information is just something that exists in my mind.

Love isn't physical but most of us have had it.

Not much for me.

 

[Gravage]

i really dont know what the physical interpretation of information is. to me, information is just something that exists in my mind.




Not much for me.

I have to admit I forgot what is the definition of information in physics, but I was also talking about quantum information and classic information:
There is some explanation of quantum information on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information_science