But it isn't clear that there is any such thing as 'empty space'.
Which is pretty much how Parmenides described it 2500 years ago. How does that differ from 'the universe is everything that exists'?
But it isn't clear that there is any such thing as 'empty space'.
Which is pretty much how Parmenides described it 2500 years ago. How does that differ from 'the universe is everything that exists'?
Absolutely. It is a mental and emotional as well as moral deficiency of space to not contain anything but itself. Very selfish, inwardly-turning. Empty space must be punished, and punished severely.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:42 amBut it isn't clear that there is any such thing as 'empty space'.
If space is viewed relativistically there is "empty space" as empty implies a deficiency of one space from another.
In a separate respect empty space can be viewed not as a thing initself but rather a "limit" to the "1" space, much in the same manner 0d is not a thing in itself but rather the "limit" of 1d. 1d however is infinite, hence 0d is the perpetual individuator as multiplicity (a 1d line continual individuates through the 0d point.).
Space as unity is 1d, while space as multiplicity (as the limit of unity, considering nothing is nothing) is premised in 0d.
Which is pretty much how Parmenides described it 2500 years ago. How does that differ from 'the universe is everything that exists'?
It doesn't if all dimensions are viewed strictly as extensions of 1, and multiplicity is merely an approximation of 1.
Fair enough. For practical purposes they can simply be treated as forces that different point sources of charge, or mass, exert on each other. As far as the maths is concerned, it doesn't necessarily matter how big a source of charge or mass is; you could replace the Sun with a bucketful of black hole, and the Earth would continue to orbit it.
If subatomic particles are treated as point sources, then the cloud of protons and neutrons (and their constituent quarks) that make up a nucleus is typically 1/10000 the size of the orbit of the surrounding electrons. So if a nucleus were the size of this full stop . the electrons would be something like 5 metres away, and everything in between would be empty space.
Better late than never. (It's Will, by the way.)
Thank you-it did.
Well, if you are reading the blog, rather than the book, it's a slightly dated version,which I am in the process of revamping, but any and all feedback is very welcome.
I learned several things, and got reassured in several things by reading the post.
interesting video- if all matter in the universe is currently moving towards a singular point...uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:19 pmIf subatomic particles are treated as point sources, then the cloud of protons and neutrons (and their constituent quarks) that make up a nucleus is typically 1/10000 the size of the orbit of the surrounding electrons. So if a nucleus were the size of this full stop . the electrons would be something like 5 metres away, and everything in between would be empty space.
However, nobody seriously believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls. You've got yer string theorists, who try to describe the world as if it were completely bonkers, and maybe it is. Then there's the slightly less extravagant claims of quantum field theories, according to which particles are some sort of distortion in a mechanical medium, i.e. some 'stuff'. If you have ever seen the rubber sheet/spacetime fabric analogy often used to explain general relativity (here for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05L5F4GwOqM ), you've got the basic idea. The difference is that at the quantum level, you can dispense with the objects (stars, planets etc in spacetime) and consider fundamental particles simply as the distortions.
Well yeah, Einstein thought it should be, but he also believed the universe is stable. To account for galaxies' failure to move towards a singular point, Einstein made up a force that exactly counteracted gravity. It was never more than a mathematical fudge, so it never got more than a mathematical name-the cosmological constant.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pminteresting video- if all matter in the universe is currently moving towards a singular point...
Easy to visualise.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pmif nobody believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls, why are atoms taught as if they are?
that's funny- the universe is moving away from us at increasing speed and we call it dark energyuwot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:37 amWell yeah, Einstein thought it should be, but he also believed the universe is stable. To account for galaxies' failure to move towards a singular point, Einstein made up a force that exactly counteracted gravity. It was never more than a mathematical fudge, so it never got more than a mathematical name-the cosmological constant.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pminteresting video- if all matter in the universe is currently moving towards a singular point...
Turns out that far from being stable, with the exception of a couple of nearby galaxies, notably Andromeda, which gravity is dragging us towards, the other several hundred billion observable galaxies are all moving away from us. Belgian priest Georges Lemaître took this to mean that the galaxies used to be closer and, in fact, originated from a singular point. This was too much like a moment of creation for British atheist Fred Hoyle, who ridiculed the idea, calling it the big bang theory. Realising he'd cocked up, Einstein called the cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his career.
Until fairly recently, it was thought that gravity might slow down the expansion of the universe; maybe halt and even reverse it, so that the entire universe would be moving towards a singular point-the big crunch. However, further observations show that not only is the universe expanding, the rate at which it is doing so is accelerating. This time, because the origin is observation, rather than maths, the explanation is given a physical, rather than mathematical name-dark energy.Easy to visualise.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pmif nobody believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls, why are atoms taught as if they are?
Actually, most atoms are in the shape of little shiny balls. Except they are mostly hollow, not solid like ball bearings.uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:37 amEasy to visualise.Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:28 pmif nobody believes that fundamental particles are tiny little balls, why are atoms taught as if they are?