Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
river said:
The Universe does not evolve .

The Universe de-involves into nothing . It is non-sustainable .
Click to expand...
You have completely changed the initial post. Here's your email alert version that I answered:
Fine , then explain in more detail your meaning in #20 . What did I misunderstand ?
Click to expand...
My point there was that an expanding hypothetical universe consisting of nothing but photons is doomed to continue in that state forever. The photon energy spectrum approximately allowing such would be very heavily biased towards the low end. Like say the current CMBR. Otherwise you must according to QED have a mix of photons and charged particle-antiparticle pairs - predominantly electron-positron pairs unless the temperature was extremely high.
I'm not clear on the details but if expansion were high enough, iirc not all particle-antiparticle pairs will annihilate to just radiation as the temp drops, so a residue remains even at low temp. But never is there a baryogenesis process allowing an excess of matter over antimatter. Since it's an unrealistic scenario, not worth pursuing further.

As for your assertion 'the universe does not evolve', I think you need to broaden your understanding of how that term 'evolve' is used in different contexts. Of course the universe has evolved.
Please study at least one of the two articles I suggested earlier.
 
Q-reeus said:
You have completely changed the initial post. Here's your email alert version that I answered:

My point there was that an expanding hypothetical universe consisting of nothing but photons is doomed to continue in that state forever. The photon energy spectrum approximately allowing such would be very heavily biased towards the low end. Like say the current CMBR. Otherwise you must according to QED have a mix of photons and charged particle-antiparticle pairs - predominantly electron-positron pairs unless the temperature was extremely high.
I'm not clear on the details but if expansion were high enough, iirc not all particle-antiparticle pairs will annihilate to just radiation as the temp drops, so a residue remains even at low temp. But never is there a baryogenesis process allowing an excess of matter over antimatter. Since it's an unrealistic scenario, not worth pursuing further.

As for your assertion 'the universe does not evolve', I think you need to broaden your understanding of how that term 'evolve' is used in different contexts. Of course the universe has evolved.
Please study at least one of the two articles I suggested earlier.
Click to expand...

In what form do think the Universe has evolved ?
 
river said:
In what form do think the Universe has evolved ?
Click to expand...
I currently have no reason to disagree with the standard BB model. Once again - actually study the article or articles linked to earlier, and you will have your answer.
If you persist with such idle questions, I will consider you to be trolling and will ignore any future posts of your here.
 
Q-reeus said:
I currently have no reason to disagree with the standard BB model. Once again - actually study the article or articles linked to earlier, and you will have your answer.
If you persist with such idle questions, I will consider you to be trolling and will ignore any future posts of your here.
Click to expand...

I understand your position ; your assuming though that I'm not familiar with BB . I am .
 
river said:
The Universe does not evolve .
Click to expand...
It is evolving even now - from large to larger.

river said:
I understand your position ; your assuming though that I'm not familiar with BB . I am .
Click to expand...
Not familiar enough to know that this is nonsense:

river said:
The Universe does not evolve . The Universe de-involves into nothing . It is non-sustainable . In the standard -model -of-the-big-bang-theory .
Click to expand...
 
river said:
No

Because BB loses energy .
Click to expand...
1. You know what evolving means right? It means changing. Order changing to disorder is an evolution.


2. I'm not sure what you mean by "BB loses energy". BB was an event. Are you perhaps thinking of the evolution of the universe that developed from the BB?
 
river:

river said:
The Universe does not evolve .

The Universe de-involves into nothing . It is non-sustainable . In the standard -model -of-the-big-bang-theory .
Click to expand...
You keep making claims, without attempting to back them up.

Please provide evidence and/or argument for your claims, quoted here, or retract them.
 
river:

↑
The Universe does not evolve .

The Universe de-involves into nothing . It is non-sustainable . In the standard -model -of-the-big-bang-theory .
Click to expand...


James R said:
river:


You keep making claims, without attempting to back them up.

Please provide evidence and/or argument for your claims, quoted here, or retract them.
Click to expand...

Since BB was an " explosion " it Naturally loses energy , therefore it devolves in to , nothing .
 
Back to the OP .

Is space a consequence of energy and matter formation ; or does space exist in and of its self ?

For me space is infinite as energy and matter is . Therefore for me it is the energy and matter that seemingly bends space , but not space it self that is bent .
 
DaveC426913 said:
It was not an explosion.
Explosions are ballistic.
It was a rapid expansion.

Go ahead - ask what the difference is.

Why do you insist of talking about things of which you know nothing - and for which you can't be bothered to read even a simple Wiki page to educate yourself?
Click to expand...

Rapid expansion , in a bang .

Expansions lose energy .
 
river said:
Therefore for me it is the energy and matter that seemingly bends space , but not space it self that is bent .
Click to expand...
Am I dreaming or is River beginning to make some sense ? (well it is along those lines that I attempt to understand the curvature of space-time )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top