Space-time, Big Bang and Black Holes.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon involving two or more particles at a time and it has been demonstrated in the double-slit experiment. In this experiment, waves that pass through two slits simultaneously can produce interference patterns, demonstrating that particles can be in two places at once.

That's another common but inaccurate statement. The particle isn't at two places at once, it's only ever observed in one place, but its wave aspect (to simplify) extends through space, so can pass through both slits and interfere, which influences where the particle is likely to be detected.

We can be in two different places at the same time. We can go anywhere in the Universe in an instant.

No, it doesn't work for macro-scale objects.

Quantum interconnectedness is the idea that under certain circumstances, subatomic particles are in some form of intimate connection with one another, no matter how far apart they are. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in experiments such as the double-slit experiment, where two particles with a single wavefunction are entangled and the measurement of one particle will immediately affect the other. Quantum interconnectedness has also been explored in relation to consciousness, suggesting that all things may be connected on a quantum level.

Sadly, quantum entanglement doesn't allow the exchange or transmission of classical (i.e. useful) information (see the No Communication Theorem), so it can't help with FTL communication, and even if all things are 'connected on a quantum level', they can only communicate by conventional means ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is not the case. It is space that is expanding, and the expansion is only at cosmological scales, i.e. outside gravitationally bound systems such as galaxies or galaxy clusters. The expansion of space has no effect within the galaxy or galaxy cluster.

Space, as is measured by distance, or by motion over time... It sounds to me like you are saying, Distances of separation between bodies or systems are increasing (but not on the local scale).

I'm afraid I can't make sense of any of that...

I was just trying to describe a way to show that the notion of my first paragraph doesn't make any sense. That is, if it was true, it becomes meaningless. There is no way to know or to show it, nor to prove it wrong, that I know of; except, perhaps, by the self-contradictory implication that as one approaches a black hole, it must appear to the one entering the apparent event horizon, that it remains just as far as ever. In other words, meaningless.

Space is expanding, uniformly. That's why the distance between all non-gravitationally-bound structures is increasing. The expansion of space is accelerating. The more distant the object, the faster it is receding, because that's what happens with uniform expansion. The acceleration of the expansion adds a little to the increase in recession velocity with distance.

I understand you are talking of acceleration— not just speed, but speed per speed. As far as I can tell, you are only stating it as a fact, and describing what it means, a little. You are not explaining how it is possible— am I getting that right? You are also stating that the increasing distances are happening between systems, not between gravity-bound objects. I suppose that means as far as we have measured, local groups of galaxies are not separating, but distances from one group to another are.

Anyhow, thanks for the help.

 

[Diamond7]

The particle isn't at two places at once,

In a dream once God took me to the center of the universe. I was there in an instant. There are things in Quantum physics that would suggest on a subatomic particle level that is possible.

even if all things are 'connected on a quantum level'

Neil DeGrasse Tyson took over for Carl Sagan as the host of Cosmos. But the difference between Universe and Cosmos is the connection that everything has with each other. God tells us He is all in all. The entire universe is a very fine-tuned machine that is highly synchronized. Not to mention that we are star stuff. That makes us one with the stars as the Bible suggests. Stars are bright and colorful so we can tell how hot they are and what elements are in them.

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem is the layperson and creationists in particular who go on endlessly about the BB being about creation ex Nihilo haven't caught up with the science which has shown there no such thing as "nothing".
This was discussed in this thread.

The astrophysicist Matt O'Dowd gives a layperson description in this video.

I really like Matt O’Doud’s videos. They have greatly helped me, moreso than most other science youtubers (although Sixty Symbols is pretty good) keep my physics mind sharp and also improve the quality of the medium-hard SF stories I enjoy writing as a hobby.

 

[The Liturgist]

Space, as is measured by distance, or by motion over time... It sounds to me like you are saying, Distances of separation between bodies or systems are increasing (but not on the local scale).

This is, we assume for the moment, because dark energy is weaker than gravity, so the gravitationally bound galactic clusters and individual galaxies stick together, but where the forces become weaker, such at the distance between our Local Group Cluster and the nearest neighboring cluster, the expansion of the universe is in effect pushing galaxies and galactic clusters away from each other at an accelerating rate, and this can be discerned due to redshift.

It is nothing to worry about, as it will not have a noticeable effect for several billion years, and the stelliferous era itself is projected to last another hundred trillion years. Thus, none of this interferes with the Christian religion or eschatology.

 

[Larniavc]

In a dream once God took me to the center of the universe. I was there in an instant. There are things in Quantum physics that would suggest on a subatomic particle level that is possible.

That was just a dream and no there isn’t.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I really like Matt O’Doud’s videos. They have greatly helped me, moreso than most other science youtubers (although Sixty Symbols is pretty good) keep my physics mind sharp and also improve the quality of the medium-hard SF stories I enjoy writing as a hobby.

Hello

I'm wondering how they "know" there is no such thing as 'nothing'; but they sure don't have any way to prove there is a 'nothing'. I keep hearing claims that are, let's say, poetic. Not quite accurate. Granted that vacuum as we think of it, is not nothing. We still don't quite know what even gravity is. There are always gravitational fields. When they speak of space-time expansion, they sometimes sound like there was at sometime, and though we can't see it, because it may even be moving outward faster than light, there was/is an outside limit to space. I don't know what is true there, and what is hyperbolic, or poetic symbolism or what. But theoretical nothingness is not the same thing as we might call "empty vacuum". That has become plain. IF God exists, (and I can accept no other 'god' if he is not omnipotent first cause), then not only "all truth is God's truth", but God's truth is the only truth. No moving around or readjusting, or redefining. Just (for us) more learning. If he is first cause, then he does not intrude on nothingness in order to create. Even nothingness, whatever it is, depends on him in order to be fact. If first cause exists, there is no 'brute fact' but first cause.

Side subject/question: Does anybody know if there is a word for "completely pervasive" or "exhaustively pervasive"? For example, what someone might use concerning our logical need for causation? Is Causation exhaustively pervasive? I have to say yes. And so far, I would say that science agrees. But that introduces another subject: The accuracy of human statements. Is there any statement that assumes nothing? You (Liturgist) might remember me quoting CS Lewis from Til We Have Faces, "..the babble that we think we mean".

The older I get, the more obvious it is to me that our statements depend much on "we say", from philosophical arguments to theology to cosmology. We may 'have to say', but that doesn't mean that what we have to say, is really even descriptive of the truth. For example, I delight in the theological philosophical attribute, "The Simplicity of God", which, if true renders all the rest of his attributes merely our way of thinking, or compartmentalizing. They are true, but none is definitive without all the others. But the Simplicity of God, then, is also self-contradictory, (sort of). I say 'sort of', because we can't help but compartmentalize, in our handling of concepts. I want to do a thread on this, sooner or later. But I have to let it stew a while longer.

Anyhow, thanks for the fun.

 

[sjastro]

Hello

I'm wondering how they "know" there is no such thing as 'nothing'; but they sure don't have any way to prove there is a 'nothing'. I keep hearing claims that are, let's say, poetic. Not quite accurate. Granted that vacuum as we think of it, is not nothing. We still don't quite know what even gravity is. There are always gravitational fields. When they speak of space-time expansion, they sometimes sound like there was at sometime, and though we can't see it, because it may even be moving outward faster than light, there was/is an outside limit to space. I don't know what is true there, and what is hyperbolic, or poetic symbolism or what. But theoretical nothingness is not the same thing as we might call "empty vacuum". That has become plain. IF God exists, (and I can accept no other 'god' if he is not omnipotent first cause), then not only "all truth is God's truth", but God's truth is the only truth. No moving around or readjusting, or redefining. Just (for us) more learning. If he is first cause, then he does not intrude on nothingness in order to create. Even nothingness, whatever it is, depends on him in order to be fact. If first cause exists, there is no 'brute fact' but first cause.

Side subject/question: Does anybody know if there is a word for "completely pervasive" or "exhaustively pervasive"? For example, what someone might use concerning our logical need for causation? Is Causation exhaustively pervasive? I have to say yes. And so far, I would say that science agrees. But that introduces another subject: The accuracy of human statements. Is there any statement that assumes nothing? You (Liturgist) might remember me quoting CS Lewis from Til We Have Faces, "..the babble that we think we mean".

The older I get, the more obvious it is to me that our statements depend much on "we say", from philosophical arguments to theology to cosmology. We may 'have to say', but that doesn't mean that what we have to say, is really even descriptive of the truth. For example, I delight in the theological philosophical attribute, "The Simplicity of God", which, if true renders all the rest of his attributes merely our way of thinking, or compartmentalizing. They are true, but none is definitive without all the others. But the Simplicity of God, then, is also self-contradictory, (sort of). I say 'sort of', because we can't help but compartmentalize, in our handling of concepts. I want to do a thread on this, sooner or later. But I have to let it stew a while longer.

Anyhow, thanks for the fun.

It seems to me you are clinging onto the ex nihilo argument as it provides a foot in the door to get God involved in the science.
Trying to prove the existence of nothing is an oxymoron, in fact science is not in the business of proving anything but only to disprove.
Newton saw (absolute) space as a coordinate system for defining the position of objects in which case space can be defined as nothing.
Science evolves and QFT (quantum field theory) tells us vacuum energy is an intrinsic property of space(time).

The experimental evidence such as the Casimir effect mentioned in previous posts clearly does not support the existence of “nothingness”.
Another piece of evidence is that “nothingness” would violate the conservation of energy for beta decay where a neutron decays into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino according to the reaction.

n → p + eˉ+ ṽₑ.

The decay can be expressed at more fundamental level using quantum field theory.

In the diagram the W⁻ boson which is the carrier for the weak force pops into and out of existence when a neutron decays into a proton and hangs around with a half life of Δt ≈ 3 x 10⁻²⁵ s.
Its mass is around 80X greater than the neutron which has been confirmed by experiment.
So where did the mass of the W⁻ boson come from; certainly not from the neutron but from the (Higgs) vacuum energy of the field.

The only other avenue where nothingness could exist is before the BB where you have probably heard of the archaic definition that space and time were created at the BB which came before inflation such as illustrated in your diagram in post #7.

These days cosmologists favour a hot big bang which came after inflation.
The Hot Big Bang is believed to be the result of the Universe going from a false vacuum to a true vacuum at t =10⁻³⁰ s after the conventional BB at t=0.
In this case the field associated with the vacuum is the scalar inflaton field Ф which causes an exponentially rapid inflation of the universe for a brief interval.

The universe can be visualized as a ball (slowly) rolling down the field; when it reaches the bottom into the true vacuum state it oscillates around the minimum and reheats the universe resulting in the Hot Big Bang.

This leads to the theory of eternal inflation where our universe is one of many if not an infinite number of hot BB bubble universes that came into existence in the fabric of space-time with its intrinsic vacuum energy that was always there.

 

[Neogaia777]

The universe is expanding at the speed of light equally everywhere, and there is a force that is responsible for it and/or is causing it, etc, but there is also a counter attracting force called gravity acting on all of it to try and pull it all back in, or pull it all back together also, etc... And it is my belief that these two forces are balanced, or are in perfect counter-balance equally together, etc...

If it were not for the internal forces acting on a spacecraft as it moved in to and/or toward, or approached a black hole, etc, it could theoretically fly to the center of it, but no one knows what would happen then, etc, but the event horizon would represent a point from which the people, or the spacecraft, could no longer return and could no longer escape it, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Diamond7]

quantum entanglement doesn't allow the exchange or transmission of classical (i.e. useful) information

Not in a conventional sense.

Quantum entanglement can be used for quantum communication,

 

[Larniavc]

In some areas the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light; the balance point was passed a few billion years ago.

 

[Neogaia777]

In some areas the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

That is an illusion, the universe, on supergalactic scales, is moving/expanding at the exact speed of light equally everywhere.

God Bless!

 

[Larniavc]

That is an illusion, the universe, on supergalactic scales, is moving/expanding at the exact speed of light equally everywhere.

God Bless!

There are points moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

 

[Diamond7]

I'm wondering how they "know" there is no such thing as 'nothing';

The number of particles remaining in the vacuum of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can vary based on various factors such as the operating conditions and the beam intensity. However, typically the pressure in the LHC beam pipe is in the range of 10^(-13) to 10^(-15) atmospheres, containing only a few gas particles per cubic centimeter.

Even if there were no matter or energy present in the universe, the laws of physics would still exist and determine the behavior of any matter or energy that might be introduced. As we can see in the LHC that the laws of physics remain consistent.

Musk wants to use his Boring company to build a bigger Collider.

"The pressure in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) beam pipe is much lower than atmospheric pressure. The atmospheric pressure at sea level on Earth is approximately 1 atmosphere, which is equivalent to 101,325 Pa (pascals). In comparison, the pressure inside the LHC beam pipe is typically in the range of 10^(-13) to 10^(-15) atmospheres, which is equivalent to 10^(-13) to 10^(-15) * 101,325 Pa = 0.1 to 0.01 pascals. This represents a pressure difference of many orders of magnitude. The low-pressure environment inside the LHC is crucial for the stable operation of the particle accelerator, as it allows particles to travel undisturbed over long distances." (chatbot)

 

[Neogaia777]

That is an illusion, the universe, on supergalactic scales, is moving/expanding at the exact speed of light equally everywhere.

God Bless!

From our perspective/point of view (with us as the center, etc) we appear to be not moving, or stationary, and things far away from us, appear to be moving away from us faster and faster the further they are away from us due to the way the space between spaces, or space between them/it/us "stacks", etc, and that is the illusion, etc, but it (the universe on supergalactic scales) is actually growing/expanding, at the exact speed of light equally everywhere, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

There are points moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

See my post just now, it is an illusion.

God Bless!

 

[Diamond7]

That is an illusion, the universe, on supergalactic scales, is moving/expanding at the exact speed of light equally everywhere.

The universe is expanding faster but nothing is moving faster than the speed of light. If a particle were to travel through space at a speed greater than the speed of light, it would result in a phenomenon known as time dilation. The time dilation becomes significant and can cause particles to decay.

 

[Neogaia777]

The universe is expanding faster but nothing is moving faster than the speed of light. If a particle were to travel through space at a speed greater than the speed of light, it would result in a phenomenon known as time dilation. The time dilation becomes significant and can cause particles to decay.

See my post #35 just now.

God Bless!

 

[Larniavc]

See my post just now, it is an illusion.

God Bless!

No it’s not. That’s why there is the concept of the observable universe.

 

[Neogaia777]

The universe is expanding faster but nothing is moving faster than the speed of light. If a particle were to travel through space at a speed greater than the speed of light, it would result in a phenomenon known as time dilation. The time dilation becomes significant and can cause particles to decay.

On the subject of time dilation, it happens exponentially (time slows down or stops, etc) (theoretically, etc) at speeds close to the speed of light, or at places very, very near to a large or great gravitational pull/force/object, etc, but is most usually very, very negligible unless you are very, very close to either, etc, as it happens (or increases) exponentially, and at first is very, very negligible, or is very, very small (to the point that it almost immeasurable) at first, etc...

God Bless!