Dark, Cold, Space. Do these exist?

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: 1.Just because we haven't discovered particles smaller than photons does not mean they don't exist. Just that we cannot detect them. 2.There may well be particles to whom our densest material is completely permeable. I feel there are just different levels of the presence of matter throughout every square inch of the universe.

I agree with point 1. well put. Good thing to remember.

No.2 however, is speculation. Even if true, we can be hypothetically speaking about what is outside the universe. We can still speculate about nothing, absence of anything. We'd just have to adjust our thinking of where 'nothing' is.

Like we did with air and the atmosphere. Where prior to knowledge of air and the atmoshpere and molecules etc, an empty box (actually filled with air) is empty, so too would we have to readjust our perception of "outer space" not being space.

Until we discover such material, we can describe space as void/vacuum/space as far as we know

I like the idea that absolute truth DOES exist, but whether we will ever know it is another question.[/QUOTE]I don't think #2 is as speculative as you think. Just when we think we've found the smallest particle, they think they've found another. How small can you get before you become nothing? The answer is infinitely. No matter what number you pick on the line, you can always divide it by another number. You can see the distance between any two points on the number line as containing an infinite number of points in between. So you have infinite possibilities in a finite space. How is this paradox possible? It's all about understanding how everything is relative to our viewpoint on the physical universe. We define our own reference points as best as we can. We set our reference points based on our perceptions. It's no more easy to truly envision a point of nothing than it is to envision a point of everything. It just seems that way. The truth is that we don't even fully understand the definition of "something", much less "nothing". We just think we can envision nothing. We can't. It's like the number zero, just a logical reference point. A convenient way to put effectively finite limits on an infinite thing.

[ 01-08-2003, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: I don't think #2 is as speculative as you think. Just when we think we've found the smallest particle, they think they've found another. How small can you get before you become nothing? The answer is infinitely. No matter what number you pick on the line, you can always divide it by another number. You can see the distance between any two points on the number line as containing an infinite number of points in between. So you have infinite possibilities in a finite space. How is this paradox possible? It's all about understanding how everything is relative to our viewpoint on the physical universe. We define our own reference points as best as we can. We set our reference points based on our perceptions. It's no more easy to truly envision a point of nothing than it is to envision a point of everything. It just seems that way. The truth is that we don't even fully understand the definition of "something", much less "nothing". We just think we can envision nothing. We can't. It's like the number zero, just a logical reference point. A convenient way to put effectively finite limits on an infinite thing.

Fair enough and points taken; but finding smaller and smaller particles and presuming them to be prevalent throughout outer space are two different things Ken. The speculation aspect was more in regard to the latter.

You may well be correct. Until such a time as such particles are found, we can honestly say, that with present human knowledge and understanding, space is a void, as far as we know.

We used similar laws of assumption you're using regarding the earths landmass. Because we'd discovered much land in the northern hemisphere, it was presumed we'd find much land in the south. "The great south land." This was incorrect. Other than the relatively small continents of Australia and Antarctica, no huge contintent was found.

All we have is what we already know. It does not automatically follow that further discoveries in a similar vein are a given.

We MAY have found the smallest particle there is. We may not. Hence the speculation either way.

Well I couldn't read all of the responses, and Im sure some one pointed this out but....
Dark and cold are CONDITIONS and not OBJECTS.

Space on theother hand...may be just the abscence of matter, if this is the case then it is not an object either.

If however there is some kind of "fabric" that makes up space-time, then it would be an object and thus exist as a seperate object. woooF

[Night Stalker]

Magik has a point. And there are a few theories about "dark matter" floating around. Don't know much of them though.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by MagiK: Well I couldn't read all of the responses, and Im sure some one pointed this out but.... Dark and cold are CONDITIONS and not OBJECTS. Space on theother hand...may be just the abscence of matter, if this is the case then it is not an object either. If however there is some kind of "fabric" that makes up space-time, then it would be an object and thus exist as a seperate object. woooF

My view Magik, is that the fabric of space-time is the very same cloth everything else is made of. Matter is the answer. I think every inch of our physical universe is filled with matter in some quantity and/or form. The presence of matter defines the space it occupies. Without matter, "absolute nothing" or "the void" doesn't exist, which is redundant. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The concept of time also seems dependant upon the state/relative speed of matter. For instance, matter travelling faster than other matter experiences time distortion, but only from a relative perspective from that other matter. Time for each individual perspective from that perspective, was the same. Of course, the differences in speed have to be great in order for there to be a perceivable difference.

Anyway, I figure if time/space is the same basic thing, and matter can define how time passes, it also defines space.

[daan]

Dark matter was a stupid invention IMHO ...
Some scientists thought of a formula to calculate how much the entire universe ( or maybe just or solar-system, cant remember ) weighed. But when they went and weighed in a different way, the results didnt match.
So "obviously", the formula which is offcourse correct, weighed something we cant see or measure yet. This is dark matter.

"1 + 1 = 2, not 3 daan"
"ah, but you are mistaken, you forgot -dark numbers-"

Seriously, what kind of crappy theory is that ?

[Night Stalker]

To quote myself ..... some bs constant invented to make the equations work. I'm not sure I buy the "dark matter" theory either, and I'm only passingly (is this actually a word?) familiar with it.

I like this topic .... it can be tech wennie, scientific; and philisophical at the same time!

[Legolas]

Originally posted by Yorick: If..... Dark is absence of light Cold is absence of heat and Space is absence of anything do the 'negative three' actually exist?

Actually, because of the wave-like behaviour of light, it's possible to create darkness using two lightsources (I think the effect is called destructive interference in English). Darkness isn't neccisarily the absence of light.

As for cold, temperature refers to the kinetic energy of molecules. When it's cold that just means molecules move around less, not that it isn't 'warm'. They are no more opposites than are ratings of 3 and 7 on a scale of 1-10.

Space isn't the absence of objects either; objects can exist within a space. Empty space is a space in which there are no objects...

With all three definitions lacking, I can't possibly agree with the logic

However, since there's an 'if' at the start of the post, I can for the moment pretend the definitions are correct.

Dark may be the absence of light, but it is the 'natural' state for things to be. Light can only be created if there is energy to do so. As there would be no way to create darkness, you may well question if it is a real thing.

If cold is the absence of heat from a westerling's point of view, then heat must be the absence of cold viewed from, for example, the Inuit. Since it depends on what you are used to, cold exists as much as heat does (but how much is that?).

If space is the absence of anything, then by it's own definition it does not exist (although a space being the absence of space line of thought will get you quite a headache).

But real or not, we do experience all three. If they aren't real, we're all having some serious hallucinations (or chemotropical illusions).

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: My view Magik, is that the fabric of space-time is the very same cloth everything else is made of. Matter is the answer. I think every inch of our physical universe is filled with matter in some quantity and/or form. The presence of matter defines the space it occupies. Without matter, "absolute nothing" or "the void" doesn't exist, which is redundant. [img]smile.gif[/img] The concept of time also seems dependant upon the state/relative speed of matter. For instance, matter travelling faster than other matter experiences time distortion, but only from a relative perspective from that other matter. Time for each individual perspective from that perspective, was the same. Of course, the differences in speed have to be great in order for there to be a perceivable difference. Anyway, I figure if time/space is the same basic thing, and matter can define how time passes, it also defines space.

Ouch! Reading that hurt my brain almost as much as reading Hawkings latest book. Sounds like a nice theory, but Im not sure space-time can be considered "matter" what particles/waveicles would it be made up of?

Just read in the latest Popular Science, that some guy (not someguy) and his team have found evidence or more evidence that points toward the existance of dark matter thru direct observation.....don't remember the details however

[ 01-09-2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]