ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Deep questions answered

Posted: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:18 PM by Alan Boyle

What is the universe expanding into? How could we possibly make trips to other star systems? What happens when two black holes meet? Is a "theory of everything" within reach? Such are the questions that Cosmic Log readers posed for Stephen Hawking, arguably the world's most famous physicist as well as the world's most famous quadriplegic.

We've shipped off a selection of queries for Dr. Hawking to consider, but we can already address the questions we've just listed, as well as other questions relating to his favorite music - and even his favorite episode of "The Simpsons."

The questions we sent Hawking's way via e-mail focus mainly on the big mysteries: God, life, the universe and everything - plus space travel and weightlessness, of course. It'll take weeks for the good doctor to reply, and there's no ironclad guarantee he'll actually find the time to do it.

But in the meantime, Hawking's pronouncements continue to pop up in the news. Just today, for example, he caused a stir by observing that human activities are affecting Earth's climate in ways that "may forever change life on Earth." Some of the answers to frequently asked questions can be gleaned from Hawking's past statements, and others can be pieced together based on current cosmological theory.

In that vein, then, here are the likely answers to some of the deep (and not-so-deep) questions. If some of these answers aren't quite right, or up to the standards you'd expect from Stephen Hawking, that's my fault alone - and I'll look forward to your corrections and amplifications in the comments section:

N. Anthony: "Where does the universe end? Is it infinite? I've heard that the universe expands at the speed of light, but what is it expanding into?"

Here's what Hawking has to say on his Web site about the nature of our universe in four-dimensional space-time:

"... James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off."

Like other cosmologists, Hawking would say the idea that the universe is expanding "into" something gives the false impression that we can perceive that "something." We often think of the expanding universe as the surface of an inflating balloon - but this analogy is imperfect, because we're trying to think of our three-dimensional space as a two-dimensional surface. Physicist Michio Kaku provided an explanation of all this a few years ago - an explanation that's actually a condensation of a longer answer he provided as part of the "Stephen Hawking's Universe" project at PBS.

Based on Hawking's no-boundary proposal, it wouldn't make sense to ask what came before the first instant of the universe's existence, or what will come after the last instant - just as it doesn't make sense, at least technically, to ask what on the earth's surface is north of the North Pole, or south of the South Pole. (Yes, I know there's "up" and "down," but I hope you see what I mean.)

Also, there would be no "edge" or "end" to the universe. If you extended a straight line in one direction, that line would theoretically come right back to the starting point. Of course, you'd never be able to check that out experimentally because the universe is so mindbogglingly big.

Gene Seawright: "If the universe is ever expanding, why will the galaxy Andromeda eventually collide with the Milky Way galaxy?"

On the largest scales, the expansion of the universe indeed is accelerating. But on smaller scales, galaxies are moving to and fro within local groups, influenced in part by gravitational interactions. The expected collision between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy - in about 3 billion years or so - is the result of such interactions.

Tim Nixon: "If the human race must move beyond Earth and colonize other planets in order to survive, how can we overcome the vast distances of space and the limitations of traveling at the speed of light?"

Hawking addressed this part of the question not all that long ago, in his interview with the BBC:

"Sooner or later, disasters such as an asteroid collision or nuclear war could wipe us all out. But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe. There isn’t anywhere like the Earth in the solar system, so we would have to go to another star.

"If we used chemical fuel rockets like the Apollo mission to the moon, the journey to the nearest star would take 50,000 years. This is obviously far too long to be practical, so science fiction has developed the idea of warp drive, which takes you instantly to your destination. Unfortunately, this would violate the scientific law which says that nothing can travel faster than light.

"However, we can still within the law, by using matter/antimatter annihilation, at least reach just below the speed of light. With that, it would be possible to reach the next star in about six years."

Moreover, if we could travel that close to the speed of light, the trip would seem to take less time to the travelers onboard their matter/antimatter-powered craft, thanks to relativistic time dilation. This little applet demonstrates how the travel time would be shorter for the folks on board than for the folks watching from Earth, depending on how fast you travel.

Check out this archived article for more about antimatter drives and other exotic ideas for interstellar propulsion.

Steven Vanhee: "What happens if two black holes meet? Will the 'strongest' consume the other one, eventualy reducing the universe to one, triggering a second big bang?"

Physicists suspect that black holes do indeed collide with each other, setting off huge blasts in the process. But in Hawking's view, black holes don't last forever. In fact, one of Hawking's biggest contributions to physics is the view that black holes eventually fizzle out, due to a phenomenon known as "Hawking radiation." So the scenario of all the black holes being swept up into one big monster would be highly unlikely.

John B.: "Do you believe string theory is the Holy Grail of modern physics and if so how has it or will it impact our understanding of the universe both great and small?

In his BBC interview, Hawking stuck to his view that physicists could arrive at a "theory of everything" within 20 years - and that such a theory might allow scientists to "read the mind of God." However, in his book "A Briefer History of Time," Hawking speculates that there might not be one single theory to explain the whole universe. Instead, we might use a collection of theories to navigate the cosmos at different scales - just as we use maps at different scales to find our way around town or around the globe.

Brian: "What are your views about the current debate in the U.S. regarding fully funding stem-cell research, and what would you say to those who oppose such research that might lead to a cure for your condition?"

A few months ago, Hawking told The Independent that banning the use of human embryos for stem-cell research would be like banning the use of organs from accident victims:

"The fact that the cells may come from embryos is not an objection because the embryos are going to die anyway. It is morally equivalent to taking a heart transplant from a victim of a car accident."

Later, he told The Guardian, "We throw away many embryos in IVF [in-vitro fertilization] and no one objects. Isn't it better to use a few embryos to save lives?"

Of course, the debate over stem cells is more complicated than the organ transplant issue, in that an embryo can't give its consent for stem-cell extraction.

Thomas Ashby: "What is your favorite music? Who are your favorite musicians?"

Hawking's Web site provides the straight scoop: "I mainly listen to classical music: Wagner, Brahms, Mahler etc., but I like pop as well. What I want is music with character." Hawking said he went with his son to a Depeche Mode concert, "and my ears were ringing for the next 24 hours."

Robert LaNicca: "What is your favorite 'Simpsons' episode?"

One of his favorites - if not the favorite - would have to be "They Saved Lisa's Brain," the 1999 episode in which Hawking himself comes to Lisa's rescue. You'll find a screenshot from that episode posted on Hawking's Web site. Here's a snippet of dialogue from the episode:

Lisa: Oh, Dr. Hawking,  we had such a beautiful dream. What went wrong?
Hawking: Don't feel bad, Lisa.  Sometimes, the smartest of us can be the most childish.
Lisa: Even you?
Hawking: No. Not me. Never.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Well, Steve, I've set up a discussion board for "deep questions" that you're welcome to use.

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx
?BoardID=792&ThreadID=173297


It's not a threaded forum ... If you feel the forum needs to be threaded and this discussion board doesn't serve, perhaps someone will volunteer a forum for follow-up questions. I won't be able to look in on the board all that much, but please feel free to use it.
Harvesting stem cells from human embryos is more like taking a heart or liver from a condemned criminal than it is transplanting from an accident victim. We're going to put them to death anyway, right?
AnneB, I rarely heard about the doomsday clock myself but I was aware of it.  This is the first time that I’ve seen it reset and unfortunately it was pushed forward.  I don’t necessarily think they are trying to keep it quiet.  In fact, I think they would really want us to talk about it more than we do.  Unfortunately, the only thing likely to cause a mass panic these days is the cancellation of the American Idol… Ha-ha!

Part of the overall problem in society’s lack of attention on such topics is all the other “less realistic” claims of pending doomsdays.  Everything from black holes eating up the earth to alien invasion to robot revolution to the gravity of the other planets ripping us apart when they are aligned… have caused a general numbness on the subject.  I also think that people are apt to let important issues like climate change slide until more realistic solutions become obvious.  I’m also not sure it’s such a good idea to only focus on climate change as the only potential problem we face.  Living efficiently is a good idea for many other important reasons like our health, nature’s beauty, our national security, and our own pocketbooks too.  When things are done right, with everything factored in, you’d be surprised out how all such issues can be addressed with what would seem to be very simple “cut-to-the-chase” solutions.  We just have to expand our thinking to find solutions that address the most broad array of problems.  Local self-sufficiency, for example, would be key in almost any doomsday scenario, economic downturn, or bird flu event!
So the photons hitting your eye are actually frozen in time since they are traveling at the speed of light. They don't age on their journey so you see an exact moment in time. My question is if this is so then if a galaxy is 13 billion light years away then 13 billion old. How can it be so far away with expansion rates as they are. My question is actually a feable attempt to understand space time. Those darn tachyon emmisions!
For Some Others AND Joseph of Birmingham 

 Joseph begins by saying the rocketship is 100 feet long. Special Relativity considerations require one to state with respect to what reference frame (state of motion) the 100 feet is determined. If Joseph felt it was obviously with respect to the alien, then Earth observers will not agree on the 100 feet nor Joseph's 190 feet he declared for them. The length contraction of Special Relativity shows that, in our universe, the Earth observers will see the alein's 100 foot spacehip as having pracically zero length because it is moving with respect to Earth at close to the speed of light as set up by Joseph. Joseph, also, seems to neglect the time dilation between the clocks coming from Special Relativity. These length contractions and time dilations (slowing) are what keep the speed of light the same for ALL observers in our universe so that Joseph's answer to his first posed question is correct and what Special Relativity demands.
For Others and Wayne McCoy 

 As stated in my earlier comment, "Why?" can not be answered ultimately because, once one gives an answer, the questioner can always ask "Why?" for the answer. Bona fide scientists are aware of this difficulty and how its pursuit would make scientific efforts look foolish. "Foolish",  those who engage in attempting to answer questions knowing in advance that they have no ultimate answer. Bona fide scientists (physicists anyway) do not define, for example, length or time; they establish OPERATIONAL "definitions" instead (methods of measuring). Said "time" and "length" in physics are taken as PRIMARIES (UNDEFINEDS), something with which it is assumed one has adequate experience.

For those who have not seen some of my earlier comments, I feel compelled to repeat a part of them here lest some new readers think such a situation is hopeless and useless (a la B. Russell's "We don't know what we are talking about."). While one is not able to stop some from thinking "it's all useless", we all can see, if don't turn only a blind eye, that, even if we don't know, ultimately, what we are talking about, we find great benefits, pleasures, joys, etc. along the way by thinking about "primaries" (things left as undefinables in science). Electric charge is a primary in physics (physicists don't define it other than operationally, of course); yet, even though scientists don't know what electric charge is, they have given us TV, cellphones, etc.. Even though undefined, in physics, length, time, and mass have led, through Einstein's Special Relativity, to the amazing nuclear energy which may provide us a chance to reach other galaxies, planets, etc.. 

 I'd like to add, in order to have a self-consistent, of equal scientific opportunity, discoverable, etc. universe such as ours, the maxmum speed of light in our universe cannot be reached, let alone exceeded and needs to be finite (there is no Special Relativity and all its great accomplishments if the speed of light is infinite, the view of Classical Physics). A simple example of self-consistency depending on not exceeding the maximum speed of light in our universe may be seen by considering the following. A lightning flash seen by a California observer to strike in California may not ever be seen by an observer leaving New York on a spaceship, moving away from the California flash at a speed greater than or equal to the maximum speed of light and this fact makes our universe inconsistent (certainly not of "equal opportunity") because it has said lightning flash exist for some observers and NOT for some others in their "equal opportunity" descriptions of what is going on in or the facts of our universe. Of course, the oft told story of going back in time and killing your mother before you were born, if one could move at speeds in excess of the maximum speed of light, would surely raise havoc with consistency and discoverability (predictions of science etc.). 

 The actual value for the maximum speed of light in our universe may be dependent on the matter in and "size" of  our universe; but, current theoretical physics is not able to discover it therefrom or even if it is connected thereto. The value for the charge of an electron is in a similar situation, but String Theory may have an answer here someday. 

  W. McCoy speaks of light traversing a vacuum. Said "vacuum" went the way of the prerelativistic aether. The old "nature abhors a vacuum", today, becomes "there is no vacuum in our universe", fields are everywhere in our universe. Further, as far as a photon is concerned (from photon viewpoint) it does not "traverse" any space or vacuum because it is everywhere in our universe at once (at the maximum speed of light distance and time intervals are all zero). Omnipresence? Maybe God is a photon? It is a bit awkward to say "the maximum speed of light in the fields of our universe", but it avoids the conceptually misleading "speed of light in a vacuum". Now, there's another ASOLUTE for our universe, "the 'vacuum' does not exist". So, those who say God does not exist (a self-contradictory statement if God is equated to something absolute), might like to equate God with the vacuum. It is, however, more POSITIVE to equate God or a manifestation of God with a photon if one wishes to convey some idea of omnipresence to a non-believer. 

 Finally, can't resist an attempt to restore some hope, from Special Relativity, to those who believe in prayer, but who MAY have been discourged by claims God simply can't have time to answer all the prayers offered. If God is like a photon, then His "clock" stands still (there is no time as we know it) and He can, therefore, by Special Relativity, answer a prayer in, say, a billion years from now. by your clock and have you get the answer NOW, by your clock, because "now" and a "billion years from now" are one and the same time on God's "clock".
The speed of light?

If I were a photon of light traveling through space at the speed of light, and I passed another photon of light traveling in the opposite direction, would my reletive speed actually be two times the speed of light?

Are there any photons of light that do not travel at the speed of light. Are there stationary photons?

If a photon of light was traveling at the speed of light (relative to time?) and passing by a black hole, I would assume that the photon of light would be slowed by the gravity of the black hole. Time however would also be slowed. So, would the actual speed of light remain constant as it passed the black hole even if it took longer to do it?
the universe will always be expanding forever . it will never stop.just someone with common sence here.so stop complaining about it...
JohnQ asks, "Are there any photons of light that do not travel at the speed of light. Are there stationary photons?" I believe the correct answer to both is yes. The traditional value for the speed of light (186,000 mps) is the speed of light in a vacuum only. This changes depending on what the photo is traveling through. I'm not sure what it is, but it's much slower (perhaps not noticeably) when it travels through our atmosphere. Furthermore, recent experiments - that were testing one of Einstein’s predictions - actually slowed a photon of light down to 30mph, if not far slower by now - maybe even getting it to stop. They achieved this "jaw dropping" slowdown by sending the photon into a molecule that was chilled to near absolute zero.
Hi, Alan  --  good blog, Dr. H. should be proud of your efforts to get ordinary people involved.  I suspect he would have neither the "Time" nor the available "Space" to look after all of us, even the ones who think we "know" whereof we speak.   Like me.

Lightspeed.  It seems most people think of 'photons' as separate units only, instead of as part of the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves, acting as either or both particle and wave to move energy from one place to another.  There must also be some mass involved - witness solar sails.  Also light travels in a straight line unless it is bent by gravity or by passing through liquids and solids - witness the rainbow produced by a prism.  If you are waiting for pickup by a spaceship coming in at half-lightspeed and it turns on its headlights, you will see that light at normal lightspeed, not that speed plus half from the  spaceship, although it will be red-shifted in its wavelength.  

Relativity  --  An interesting experiment if you can rustle up the equipment  --  set up a turntable, a big one like they use in Detroit for their car shows  --  set up a videocam in the rafters above the scene  --  set up a table and two chairs opposite each other on the turntable  --  attach a second videocam to the back of one of the chairs  --  get two friends to sit down on the chairs and roll a bowling ball back and forth between them across the tabletop  --  start the turntable revolving slowly  --  start the two videocams  --  camera A in the rafters will show the turntable revolving, carrying the two friends around and around, and the bowling ball rolling in a CURVED line between them  --  but camera B on the chair will show the frends sitting in their chairs, stationary, and rolling the ball back and forth in a STRAIGHT line.  You see exactly the same scene on both cameras but the difference depends on your point of view.

The Doomsday Clock dates from the time of the Cold War and showed the waiting time left to the world as nuclear war came closer and closer, then retreated, only to advance again, getting closer and closer to midnight - 'the clock is ticking.'  Now it's all about global warming.  Though just as terminal.

Entropy  --  An easier way of saying that everything eventually runs down, expending all energy to seek an even temperature everywhere.  But tain't necessarily so.  That scenario would lead to a balanced burnt-out universe.  More likely, everthing will ultimately be consumed in a super-black-hole, including those black holes which exist now, and become part of a sub-sub-sub-nuclear particle, a singularity which will re-populate space in the next Big Bang, expanding into infinite space (no edges in infinity) and repeating the process, ad infinitum.
For Others, John O, and C. Eldridge 
 To begin, Special Relativity makes it clear that one has to specify speed with respect to what observer (John O failed to do this essential. If two spaceships are on a straightline, collision course and each, individually, has a speed close to the maximum speed of light, "c", as verified by a third observer at rest with respect to the ships (for brevity let us assume the speed of each ship is so close to "c" that we can use "c" for the speed involved instead of saying the lengthy "close to the maxcimum speed of light" knowing that it cannot be exactly "c"), each will experimentally measure the speed of the other as "c" and so will the "third observer". No one gets 2c for the experimentally found speed. It might be instrucive to some to note that "speed of light in a vacuum" is misleading in today's physics because a "vacuum" does not exist as a currently physical quantity (it went the way of the aether of Classical Physics).  The Special Relativity speed (velocity) addition formula finds "c" for all three observers involved, not the 2c of Classical physics (prior to Special Relativity.

However, there is still use for 2c in the case at hand as the GAP CLOSING SPEED, not the speed of any observer for the other (remember our example has two observers with speed "c" measured by a third with speed zero measured by the third observer claiming "rest" for himself and speed "c" is also measured by each spaceship observer (and each can claim he is at rest with respect to the other spaceman if he wants).

Now to get 2c into the act. Let us assume that the third observer is at the midpoint of the collision course of the spaceships and it takes light one hour by the third observers measurements to cover the distance between the initial separation of the two spaceships. How much time does the third observer have to get away from the midoint collision position? A little less than one half an hour. If his belief that nothing material can exceed the maximum speed of light, "c", misleads him to thinking that he has an hour to get out of the way, he's squashed (if the spaceship captains make a similar error in figuring the amount of time allowed them before a need to change course, BANG again). Again, how can this happen? The goal(mile)posts were moved. If one spaceship stood still and the other had speed "c" then the one hour computation is O.K., but when the other spaceship is not standing still at its initial separation position but moves toward the other it moves the initial goalposts. The GAP closing speed is indeed 2c and 2c is bigger than c, but in the process NOTHING moves faster than c. Special Relativity is intact.

Here's an easier way, perhaps, to see how you can "beat" light speed. If a light message is sent to you from Uranus, it will take about two and a half hours to reach you on Earth. How can you get the message sooner, "beat" light time? Easy, get in your spaceship which can move at a speed close to "c" and head towards, say, Saturn from Earth (which will take you about one hour and fifteen minutes) just as the message is sent from Uranus gets there and, hence, will reach Saturn (about halfway between Earth and Uranus) in about one hour and fifteen minutes, just as you arrive at Saturn; so, you get the message in one half the time it would have taken had you stayed on Earth and waited for light to bring it to you at "c". Did anything material move at a speed greater than "c" let alone 2c?

Finally, photons do not exist in our physical universe when at rest because their mass (energy, E = mass times the square of "c") becomes zero. Somewhat like some sharks that "die" if don't keep moving.
Disaster for Those Wanting to Travel at "c" (the maximum speed of light in our universe) or Attempt to Exceed "c" (travel to past)

At speed "c" your mass (weight) becomes INFINITE (enough reason in itself for keeping you from attaining "c"). With infinite mass you have infinite gravitational attraction (Einstein's General Relativity); so, the entire universe collapses onto you (by the way, watch out for all those BLACK HOLES running into you, you "mother" of all black holes). Thanks to its self-consistency and wisdom of avoiding suicide, our universe is designed (whoops, there's that "dirty" word or "political incorrectness") so you (or someone bent on suicide, or some terrorists?) nor anything else will have the power to destroy it with all its beauty and wonder. Let's not forget its self-consistent idea of protecing all those possible worlds (planets) with beings that all see or avoid the error of thinking rhat the destruction of others or our universe is a sure ticket to heaven or in line with the self-consistent design (whoops) of our universe. Einstein's Special Relativity discovery, which showed us the "c" speed limit, helped us to uncover a powerful way to distnguish that which is relative from that which is absolute. It's crystal clear demonstration that some things prior science thought absolute were actually relative (time and length, for examples) and found many absolutes in the science of our physical universe, physics (spacetime  and the "c" speed limit, for examples).

Maybe we can convince some terrorists that their  ultimate dream may be realized by attaining speed "c" rather than nuclear bombs. Maybe they won't know, as we do, that our universe is designed so that THEY can't get to c (heaven?) :-).
Dr. Hawking: Where do you feel the universe is headed based on all that is known or believed at present? Is all the energy at the big bang actually locked up in both normal matter and dark matter/energy? What is happening to that energy and where is it going?
Alan -- Forgive me, I goofed. The stationary camera will record the turntable moving, carrying the chairs and their occupants in a circle, and the bowling ball travelling between them in a STRAIGHT line. The camera fixed to one chair will record the chairs and the occupants as stationary, while the bowling ball moves in a CURVED line, making the recipient reach sideways to catch it. The whole experiment, even reported incorrectly, still illustrates relativity, depending upon point of view.
Light is a particle/wave? I personally believe the lightwave is a stream of particles traveling in a wavelike pattern (the experiments that show light exists in particle form destroy the lightwave) If it's not too late, I would like to ask Dr. Hawking to comment on this.
Des said, "The camera fixed to one chair will record the chairs and the occupants as stationary, while the bowling ball moves in a CURVED line, making the recipient reach sideways to catch it."

Additionaly, the bowling ball would slow down until it reached the apex of the curve and then speed up again due to centrifugal forces.
True, JohnQ, centrifugal force would send the ball flying off the table. The experiment I saw, however, had the turntable moving quite slowly and the ball massive enough to hold its own against the spinning effect. Slow and steady still wins some races, I expect.
Why do photons travel in waves vs. a straight line? What law is that photon mimicking that it does not travel in the most direct path? I'm sure "people in the know" are probably rolling their eyes as it was something they learned in their first year, but it just isn't an explainable path in my book. Is it just the way they describe it (all the changes in polarity etc)? I also used to think of a photo as a pucker or ripple in space/time. If everything is indeed one thing in other dimensions than a pucker in a unified fabric would be a better explanation that separate objects moving to and fro.. Maybe this could also explain its 'wave-like' action... Anyway...

Chris: The conventional Einsteinian wisdom is that photons and other things in a gravitational field follow the shortest path through space-time, which can be "curved" due to concentrations of mass. The common analogy is to a "great circle" airplane route (say, Seattle to London), which may not appear to be the shortest path on a two-dimensional map projection but is clearly the shortest path on a globe.

The issue of particle vs. wave is slightly different. Electromagnetic radiation can be thought of as particles (photons) or as waves. These are two convenient but incomplete concepts that physicists use ... the reality is that light is really neither a literal wave on the ether nor a collection of point particles. Is light composed of cosmic strings? Branes? The true nature of our universe is still wrapped in enough mystery to keep us going for a long, long while.

http://superphysics.tripod.com/quantum_theory.html

Right Alan 
 We don't know what a photon is. It's a "mystery". We do know that if we perform certain experiments on light, it behaves like a wave while in other experiments it behaves like a particle. Asking "Which is it?" is like asking which Special Relativistic constant velocity observer is correct when each claims the other's clock is running slowly compared with his own. Einstein's Special Relativity says both are correct and a mysteryof our univere appears. Also, if both are in same length (measured by themselves, say, both measure their own ship and find length 100) spaceships  moving at about 87% the maximum speed of light with respect to each other they will claim the other ship to have length 50. So, are the spaceship lengths 100 or 50? Answer, again, both 100 and 50 are valid lengths in our universe depending whether you are at rest with respect to the ship or moving at about 87% the maximum speed of light with respect to it. Measuring when at rest gets 100; measuring at speed gets 50; one method gets one thing the other method gets another. Similarly, measuring or looking at photons by one method sees waves while another method sees particles.
Which is correct (are photons waves or particles); both are depending on experimental set up. Some call photons "wavicles", but that doesn't solve the mystery. In observing (experimenting with) photons we try to force position and speed (velocity) onto them because that is the way we see and try to explain our universe. Position and velocity come from our way of experiencing our universe, not the way, say, a photon experiences our universe. If we can find a different way to describe our universe, we might be able to see photons in a different light (pun intended) and have a more "unified" idea of them. Meanwhile, the dichotomy plagues us and mystery remains a great incentive for further discovery ad ifinitum?

 Finally, there are mysteries of our universe that science will never answer without resorting to that's the way the creator (God, force?) made our universe. For example, our universe is so constructed with the physical absolute that no one can tell if they are at rest or in motion or it is something else in motion at a constant velocity (speed, loosely). There is absolutely no physical (scientific) way to distinguish between these two states. Many experience this fact (ABSOLUTE) of our universe when momentarily fooled as to whether our own car is   moving (and side-by-side ar at rest) or the side-by-side car is moving (and we are the ones at rest). This ABSOLUTE (fact) of our physical universe is also confirmed by all the successes of Einstein's Special Relativity and Classical Newtonian physics. It's on a par (or better than par) with the ABSOLUTE (fact) of our universe that GRAVITATION is an ATTRACTION (not a repulsion); electrical charges repel if same sign and attract if opposite sign, etc.. Science might eventually be able to show that this relativity of motion is a requirement of having a self-consistent universe or an equal opportunity universe (no favoritism for discovering physical laws (absolutes) of our universe), but mystery will remain as to why self-consistency or equal opportunity is required in our universe. As mentioned in an earlier comment, the question "WHY?", when answered, can always be followed by the "WHY?" for that answer ad infinitum.
Carlton Lane is a good teacher.  Chris Eldrige is very enthusiastic.  Ron Janet is a knowledge seeker.  John Q is a questioner.  Alan is an expert moderator.  But everyone contributes to this blog.  And that's a good thing, as Martha would say.  

A basic premise to keep in mind as we think (cogito, ergo sum) is that the universe we live in is finite, but space, into which the universe is expanding, is infinite.  And infinity, like the quantity zero, is not an understandable concept; if there were an infinite number of oranges around, there would be no room for apples; and look at your hand, envisioning a nullity of apples.  Or would that be oranges that you aren't holding?
Well... I promised myself I'd come up with a new theory of everything by morning so here it is - Ha-Ha!  "...amateurs..."  Anyway, thanks for all the feedback and the link.  I was more than surprised to see that not only photons but ALL atoms can act as waves too!  I’ve definitely seen that experiment done with the slits that shows the property of the wave, though I’m not sure where.  Obviously our universe is much more dynamic than this local condensation of “3D stuff” appears. I guess I was also a bit shocked to learn that as basic things as a photon is still such a mystery.

Not one to be afraid of wild speculation (or of looking foolish obviously), I’ve come up with this.  Much as a wave moves through air and water, it seems light (and all matter) is moving through some unseen medium or fabric that pervades everything.  Even empty space or a void has this fabric.  What we see as atoms, other humans, and so on might just be a pucker, condensation, or a local intensification of what is essentially the same thing.  There is no independent object moving from point A to point B and not even a packet of energy.  A photo is just that ripple in the water – a sign – that something caused a disturbance off in some distant star.  The properties that we see in light are trying to tell us all we need to know about the properties of this fabric (indeed the very nature of the universe).  We are all interconnected!  It would be literally “unscientific” for science to dismiss what so many spiritual people tell us: that they can feel the oneness when in deep meditation.  Ordinary people tap into this with intuition too!  Hope this helped a little!
And the Great Eldridgeski (emphasis on the ‘ski’) (…and YES, I really am VERY Polish) does it again!  Theory of Everything 2.0: Gravity Revealed!

Ok… Above when I talked about a photon is not an independent particle or even a packet of energy I wanted to specify that it doesn’t have energy – it is only the fabric of space transmitting the energy much like waves transmit the energy of a far off storm.  Yes, you can measure the energy of a light wave much like you can an ocean wave but it is not a independent packet.  The analogy of the person holding one end of a rope while the other is connected to a wall may even be more literal than just a simple example.  A distant star does not emit a photo it ripples the fabric of space which arrives here as a photo.  A photon is a pucker in the fabric of space, not something separate or independent.  

In the experiment when they shine light onto a metal surface and can count the electrons coming off of the metal – indicating that light was a particle – think of it as the wave hitting the barrier and imparting an identical energy pulse which to us seems as the particle hitting the metal and continuing on.

Gravity (no snickering) is not matter warping space but just a gigantic pucker of the material of space.  In other words, each atom in earth is a individual pucker in the fabric.  There is so many puckers in the earth that it pulls the surrounding fabric of space in its direction.  Think of it like a table cloth.  If you balled the cloth up in the center only, you’d see the fabric distorted – all the folds – as it got closer and closer to the ball of fabric in the middle.  It’s not that mass warps the fabric of space, its just that mass gathers/bunches up so much of the fabric that you get everything heading in that direction!

Pretty impressed eh?  I thought so!  All in a days work I guess… :)

P.S. Thanks Des and Yes all the feedback from Carlton and Alan and literally the enthusiam of every poster is contagious!  

For C. Eldridge and others 

 Einstein's Special Relativity showed that there was no medium (at the time it was called the "aether") needed for light waves as analogously like air for sound waves etc..

If there were such a "medium", the speed of light would not be the same for all observers (an absolute physial fact for our universe) but would differ for those moving with different speeds with respect to the "medium". It is an absolute physical fact of our universe that light has the same speed for all observers regardless of their own constant speed (the maximum speed of light is the same for ALL physically valid reference frames in our universe, another "sign" of our "equal opportunity" universe?).

For D. Emery and others

 Our visible universe is finite, but there is no current scientific evidence able to show that there is nothing (including infinite in extent) beyond our physical universe. Some physicists think that the proposed INFLATION our universe suffered early on (VERY early on) made it possible for galaxies to form outside our visible universe. While it also, currently, not be denied, some physicists say "so what" it's of no scientific value because we will never see it. Others say that we may see it someday if we and our visible universe lasts long enough, but MEANWHILE there's enough to think about. 

 Finally, infinity IS an understandable concept. Georg Cantor showed us just how, many years ago. If any concept is not understandable, it is THE ABSOLUTE INFINITY which is an infinity larger than any of the other infinities. There is somewhat of a self-contradiction here using "infinity" in the term "ABSOLUTE INFINITY" because it is NOT an infinity like other things understood and called infinite. Cantor and others were not afraid to use the word "GOD" for ABSOLUTE INFINITY, but that's a long story and, perhaps, inappropriate here. B. Russell used the phrase "set of all sets" which he showed could not be a set, again finding a somewhat self-contraictory situation which it is expected will be seen as a manner of speaking (definition) or an attempt to tell what one is talking about
even when one does not know what one is talking about (true for all definitions in ultimate sense, ala Bertrand Russell). KEEP TALKING, however, such "talk" of things we don't fully ("ultimately") understand has led us to find many joys and wonders (how about Cassini's photos of Saturn and its moons?) of our univere with many more to come if the radical terrorists don't prevail. I'm with those who think our universe is so constructed that we can enjoy it and our universe will not let it's plan be destroyed.  A reason for some to believe that there are other inhabited planets in case some "screw up"? There is plenty of "evil" along the way because our universe was lovingly crafted with FREE WILL present (a robotic, "stupid", universe can be imagined without any possibility for "screw ups"); however, I'm with those who think that our universe was wisely enough (not the "stupid" robotically way) crafted so that "good" (GOD?) would prevail.
Thanks Carlton!  Now that you mention it, that name "aether" is familiar and I see where you are going by saying it's been disproved.  I have to wonder about this new membrane/fabric theory thought... Isn't all matter/photons part of the membrane?  The membrane folded and balled up many times over but still the same membrane?  Maybe the multi-dimensional nature of the brane allows things to appear as if they are separate and heading off in different directions still interconnected.  
Carlton Lane: I was trying to say that I believe light is both particles and wave at the same time (wave-particles duality). The stream of individual photons is moving so fast in a wave-like or up and down pattern that they appear to man as only a wave existing. So the wave is made of many photon particles existing and moving not one photon particle existing and behaving like a wave. I wanted to make myself clear on what I trying to say here and will move on to another discussion.
C. Eldridge, R. Janer and others 

 Ron, you are allowed to BELIEVE whatever you want and I'll always defend this right of yours, but some science may show some beliefs to be out of "sync." with our physical, scientifc universe. After all, one can "believe" that one can build a spaceship that will go faster than the maximum speed of light; one can "believe" that it is possible to trisect a plane angle with UNMARKED straight edge and compass; one can "believe" that 2 + 2 = 5 (even I can believe the latter if 5 is defined as 4) etc.. It is important for all to know that scientists are, now, able to isolate individual photons and set up exeriments that show INDIVIDUAL photons, one by one, can produce the same wave interference pattern that a wave makes. Please see Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", Chapter 4, beginning on page 84 to see the difficulty current physics has with your belief. To say a photon can manifest  wave properties in one excperimental setup and particle properties in a different setup does not endow the photon with the ability to be both at once. By strict physics definitions "particle" and "wave" are mutually exclusive entities. Thank you Ron for your kindness and, please, do not interpret anything in this reply from me as an unkindness from me; I'm only trying to keep the record straight and hoping that I don't let any mistakes of my own slip in.

 Thank you Chris. String Theory, which leads to "branes" etc., has no supporting physical, experimental evidence yet. We'll have to postpone any scientific talk about this stuff until such confirming evidence is in. May not have to wait too long because the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is expected (ala Alan Boyle's news) to be operational later this year. It may provide the needed evidence and it may not. Other experimental verifications seem to be years down the pike.
Carlton: You can't have it both ways when you very eloquently talk of the physical universe then throw in God to make it sound all fuzzy. When you do that, you are just interjecting your own exclusive opinion that has nothing to do with how all the physical theories and facts came to be. But, if you want to call it all the works of an intelligent designer and say that "He" made the universe for us to enjoy, I call a foul.
I'm guess I'm a bit confused... If there is no aether (or fabric of space that photon's travel through), then what is it that we see gravity bending when it bends the light from a distant galaxy around another? I'll assume that aether was once considered something different than space itself.
Criticism of T. Ashley and a Choice Tidbit in Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" 

 T. Ashley either has not read my comments closely enough, not understood them, or perhaps wishes to have the word "God" stricken from the language. Careful reading of my comments will find them saying Georg Cantor (famous mathematician) used the word "God" and I used "God" in reporting Cantor's use. There was no suggestion that I was using it (God) instead of "absolute infinity" though I suggested that such use would remove the glaring self-contradiction of "absolute infinity" as a name because the terms "absolute infinity" is not an infinity in any sense used by Cantor. As to my other use of "God" it was in parentheses and followed by a QUESTION MARK. I'd also like to add that some scientists do "have it both ways" because there are probably MORE bona fide scientists who believe in both science and God (some even in religion). Einstein was not an atheist and often used the word "God" for easing understanding of the topic being discussed. 

 Reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" Chapter 7, pages 177 to 199 will let all see some of the deep mysteries of quantum theory that Einstein would have called "spooky" (meaning not deserving of the scientific label). Einstein has been shown to have been wrong here if the suggested definition of "spooky" is valid for him. While some of these findings in physics might have shaken Einstien's belief
in God, they might, instead, have only been cause for the deepening of his conviction
"God is subtle, but not malicious". Seeing the subtlety, rather than malevolence may have soething to do with optimism vs. pessimism.

Well, with the word "God" appearing so often herein, please, let me try to unruffle
any ruffled feathers, caused by insisting on my right to an appropriate use of the word "God", by suggesting those ruffled try reading these comments again and replace the word "God", whereever it appears after the first time, just now, and below, with ABSOLUTE (or THE ABSOLUTE if English so requires). Those who ascribe to "God does not exist" should be advised NOT to replace "God" in this sentence with "The ABSOLUTE" lest they display themselves to be self-contradictory ab initio.
Umpires may make mistakes when calling "foul" even when they are not self-appointed. We all need to notice that even the greatest of "umpires" are not infallible especially when making calls that are outside the game of their expertise. Dr. Hawking will most surely agree that he does not have all the answers. He is too intelligent and wise to say any such thing.
Carlton: The "greatest of all umpires"...please explain that. You seem to be wanting to mix issues of God and issues of this exclusive science communication. SH doesn't bother with notions of God or a creator. Why should he? It's not his thing. Any way you cut it, the notion of "God" is purely personal. Science of the world and universe is strictly non-personal. That is the way of science whether you speak of cells, CPU's or the Big Bang.
Carlton..   Here is something on what is being done at present to acquire a scientific basis for global consciousness by a Dr. Rodger Nelson of Princeton U.  The Global Consciousness Project.  It seeks to get a purely scientific or empiracle response to something outside us...something that may or may not exist.   http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
T. Ashby (and something others may not know about) 

 Here's a quote taken from Dr. Hawking's "A Breifer History of Time", page 142.
 "If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the unverse exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would know the mind of God." 

 Thank you T. Ashby for link and I hope this quote from Dr. Hawking will help you to better understand and remove your complaints about my earlier commentaries. Also, I write keeping in mind that some readers may have strong beliefs in and personal experiences wih God and it is nice to keep them reading
rather than immediately turn them away with innuendos or blatant claims that their God does not exist or that science can (when, in truth, it can't, Dr. Hawking is very clear on this fact) prove their God does not exist. Thanks for listening.

To be honest, that's what this world desperately needs right now: "...a complete theory understandable in broad principle by everyone.  Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason!"

We're about to blow ourselves up guys... time to hurry with some inspiration and true insight that makes us stand back and look at things anew.  I’ll have to check out the link on consciousness myself.  As I said before, it would almost be unscientific to discount what so many spiritual leaders have told us.  There is something much more to our reality (that we are wired into) that science just can’t explain.  We know things that are impossible to know… see things impossible to see…  The unity of the universe is clear to those with a deep understanding of meditation and until science say’s “hey, wait a minute! Let’s look at this.” There will be nothing that unifies (or expands) our understanding and our own feeling of connectedness with the universe.  Three-dimensional matter just cannot be self-aware without the perspective of another dimension.  If that can be proven, we can begin to see where religion and science may find an awful lot of common ground!  We are very near to a breakthough!

Much like our eyes arose because there was light to be seen, our brains grew in size because there was consciousness to be “felt.”  I wouldn’t think it a dimension by itself but something that interconnects us and allows us to feel who we are nonetheless.  The very nature of our ego (the sense of 'I') is an attempt by our physical bodies to clutch a part of it and say "this is me."  Perhaps "TIME" is the dimension that gives us our perspective of self?  
Time would allow us to look back and say “there I am,” right? I get the feeling that TIME is what intensifies 3-dimensional space into seeming like it is so many individual things all separate from one another but 3-d is simply space not individuality. Can the third dimension really be divided into separate atoms and components without time? It is time that would have separated everything from a unified whole at the moment of the big bang, not just 3-D space itself which would otherwise have no boundaries.
Carlton:  Interestingly enough, "It has been said that this (A Brief History of Time) is the most widely unread book in the history of literature".

I wonder why?  Also, SH has stated that there may in fact not be a single theory of everything. A multi-dimentional universe implies this. I personally think SH is appeasing the God crowd because he wants to sell books too!

I sure would like to see what a physics or cosmology text would look like written by an "intelligent design" author.  Or any science text for that matter. Would it just be a clever re-writing of the bible complete with diagrams and equations?
If there is no aether, and space is not a substance of any kind, what exactly is science saying is curved when science says the space-time existing around the sun is curved by the sun's gravitational pull?  Chris's confusion about this makes a lot of sense to me and I have often wondered how anyone who believes in the same space-time curvature could answer such a question.

Many scientists believe space is nothing existing(a illogical and conradictory belief)and are implying this same nothing is curved and has also expanded with the rest of the physical universe ???

What is space? If no one can give a definitive answer to this very important question we are a very long way from a proposed "theory of everything"
Ron Janer 

 Guess that I've not made the human problem with definition sufficiently clear. Let me say that "space" (you asked what is "space") in physical science is like "length"; it is scientifically taken as an undefinabled (taken as a given, something with which one is expected to have sufficient experience to know what is being talked about). Science does not know what "space" is or what "time" is or what a "photon" is (if one says a photon is a packet of light,  then one has to say what a "packet" is and  what "light" is.).  or "electric charge" is etc.. If it helps you, one can say physical "space" is the separation between any two physical objects, but now we need to know what physical objects are and separation means (note that "separation" has reality, meaning, for us for our everyday experiences and is NOT required to have any SUBSTANCE itself.

Physical "time" is even more difficult to handle and scientists settle for operational definitions (telling how to measure something, not what the something is). Einstein's Special Relativity showed us that our exclusive physical experience (prior to his Relativity) with space and time which pointed to "space" and "time" as independent ultimate realities was WRONG. Only space-time (unification,  not independence) has ultimate physical reality. Here's a crude analogy: like discovering the trunk of an elephant and then its tail and then finding there is more to the elephant. So, I hope you will not ask "What is space-time" and expect an ultimate answer, but you should still keep asking the question because it was Einstein's continual asking of what is space and what is time that led him and. eventually, us to the discovery that "space" and "time" are not ultimate realities (still difficult for us because our everyday experience makes us think wongly), but space-time is an ultimate reality. Perhaps saying "universal reality" might be better here than "ultimate reality", where "universal" means the same for all physical observers in our physical universe (individual "space" and "time" are "relative", not universal for our physical universe). There are some scientists who believe that our "physical universe" is all there is, was, and ever will be. There are others who know such a claim is a belief (opinion), not a bona fide scientific fact because it goes outside of the established scientific realm.

Try reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" to get a better grasp of what I am trying to do briefly here. In so doing you should see some problems brevity can yield and, thereby, get a much clearer picture (answers to your questions).
Answer to T. Ashby's question wodering why Dr. Hawking's "Briefer History of Time" is not widely read (my educated guess about T. Ashby's claim that it is "the most unwidely read book in the history of literature" is absolutely WRONG). It turns out that Dr. Hawking also wrote "A Brief History of Time" which was widely read, especially, by scientists and the later "A Briefer History of Time" was meant to be an easier read for those who had problems reading the earlier writings. The later book also had a few new things which could be seen without reading the entire book.

 I do hope that those reading T. Ashby's personal opinion will see it clearly for what it is and that it should not be taken as at all accurate with respect to Dr. Hawking's integrity or honesty. I am especially concerned with this type of gimmick because it is so often seen in the press nowadays, thereby, making it difficult to make good decisions in our democracy where good dccisions are so very important. The trouble is compounded with the "Press" because of the fact that an individual's opinion is being presented as a fact. Worse yet, I suppose, is any admission or retraction
is like a judge telling a jury to "ignore some statements just made" (unfortunately, this "gimmick" is not restricted to lawyers). Like trying to go back and change history and we know what Special Relativity AND our universe has to say about that
in our physical universe.
I have to apologize for my limited understanding of aether and physics.  I did the best I could to read what Wikipedia had on the subject (a lot) and I saw that aether was not considered to be the fabric of space itself but just a medium for light.  In contrast, what I’ve been trying to propose is that ALL matter (which can also act as a wave just like a photon can) is a part of this same fabric of space just like light.  We are a "united whole" with just localized intensifications.  The Earth does not pass though this fabric, it is a part of it - a much larger ripple.  If indeed true, you would not get the proposed 'drag effect' that plagued other aether theories.  Furthermore, Wikipedia basically said that ‘if the aether was ‘still’ universally, the speed of light would NOT vary from place to place.’  Thus, I don’t think that this would violate the law Carlton cited which was that the speed of light must be the same for all observers (an absolute physical fact for our universe).   I would think this especially true if we (the observer) were also part of it.

Wikipedia went on to say that “the intuitive appeal of a causal background for "relativistic" effects cannot be denied. Some physicists hold that there remain a number of problems in modern physics that are simplified by an aether concept.”  The newest theories about aether never actually seemed to be disproven - just unneeded when using special relativity.  I was surprised to learn that research is still ongoing by several scientists into the aether concept!!

Sorry indeed for all the writing, ranting and wild speculation!  It’s just a lot of enthusiasm and a true hope to see a greater almost spiritual ‘oneness’ help add – not detract - from the direction of science!

Sincerely
Chris Eldridge
As I understand it, Einstein's whole mantra began with "what would things look like if I was to travel on a beam of light?" at about age 16.  Gravity came later and the basic problem with Newton. Instantaneous action at a distance. This is implicit to Newtonian gravity. A physical force which Einstein famously refuted.

If the sun suddenly disappeared, the planets would stay in orbit at their respective light-distances then continue in a straight line one by one.  Interestingly, this will never be observed because suns don't disappear, they explode or swell up and contract. Messing up the system in the mean time.

It would be a wonderful observation however if the outer planets in a planetary system could be seen in the death throws of the parent star.

Carlton: I appologize for being overly presumptuos about SH's basic "belief". If in fact that is accurate. Dealing with God and universe is always overly presumptuous.
Carlton: I was going to debate you line for line on your response to my post(time is undefinable? Einstein defined time as the movement of a clock and many scientists agree with his definition) and then I said to myself why would I want to do this? What would I accomplish by trying to prove this fellow wrong? A person who has a great deal of interest in science just like me. I look forward to reading all of your frequent postings and would never like to insult any of you.
Einstein, Physics, and Definitions 

 Ron Janer's offering for an Einstein definition of time is an operational definition, tells how to measure it not what time ultimately is, only what is it a clock seems to measure according to us. It leaves "clock" (are we talking about an atomic clock, the clock of the universe in sync with all other universal clocks, or what?) and "movement" (most dictionaries have many definitions for "movement") undefined. Physics defines speed as distance divided by time (time and distance being left undefined), but one could define time as distance divided by speed (speed and distance being left undefined; after all, speed is less "mysterious" than "time" for many humans), but Physics has not gone the latter route.  Mathematics defines subtracion in terms of addition leaving addition undefined. Mathematics could have defined addition in terms of subtraction leaving subtraction undefined. Maybe this fact arose because the human race experienced addition first and more often compared to subtraction, thereby, causing subtraction to be defined in terms of addition. Those well trained in physics call length, time, mass, charge, etc. "PRIMARIES", meaning things that will taken as undefined and be used to define other things, related to and useful for physics. One is certainly allowed follow a different path (make a different choice for primaries) to attempt to discover the physics of this universe and maybe it will turn out (rather doubtful currently for many reasons based on our extensive discoveries thus far) to be a better way to go; maybe some aliens will show us a better way and why our currently accepted way kept us from discovering them rather than the other way around.

Finally, many physicists feel that operational definitions are the only way to go in physics and ultimate definitions are best left to philosophers and other human endeavors. Brian Greene, a physicist, in his "The Fabric of the Cosmos"
seems to be saying tht he doesn't want to leave so much fun to philosophers et al. Hope some are having some fun here too. I am and my sincere thank you's to you all for your ideas, patience, and kindness.
If what I said above was true:

"Can the third dimension really be divided into separate atoms and components without time? It is time that would have separated everything from a unified whole at the moment of the big bang, not just 3-D space itself which would otherwise have no boundaries."

Could "time" actualy be the fourth physical dimention?  The perpetual motion it instills is a side effect of its division of 3D space.
What is length? How about length is the quantity of extension of physical size of one spatial dimension? Any comments?
For Those Reading, About to Read, and Having Already Read Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" 

 Before resigning from this exciting topic, I should like to mention a couple of places in Greene's book that could cause some to go off in the wrong direction or get the wrong idea due to Greene's possible lack of clarity. 

 First, when Greene says that a clock moving at speeds close to the speed of light runs slowly, he fails to make the important stipulation the slowing is with respect to or observed by the one claiming said clock is so moving. Any observer moving with said clock will NOT observe any slowing (such an observer will claim it is the other's clock that is running slowly). 

 Greene makes it clear that Einstein's General Relativity CONFIRMS Newton's idea that mass (hence, energy also due to equivalence shown in Special Reativity) attracts other mass in our physical universe, but General Relativity shows pressure is involved, Newton's gravitation shows No pressure involved, (positive pressure makes for attraction and negative pressure makes for repulsion).
Calling the repulsion due to negative pressure "gravitational repulsion" can be misleading, especially if one is steeped in gravitation as an attration. Before Einstein, gravitation was only defined between masses, pressure was not expected to be involved until Einstein's equations discovered this fact of our phyical universe. It is still correct to hold that "gravitation of masses is an attraction and an absolute fact of our physical universe", but one should recognize that General Relativity shows there are other ways to influence masses than just by masses themselves. Calling this "other way" "gravitational repulsion"
can lead to muddying the waters, somewhat like absolute infinity
does in mathematics. It might, therefore, be better and clearer if physics reserved the definition of gravitation for what goes on between masses (and energy) and find a new word for the influence of negative pressure.

As I check out ("resign"),let me respond to Ron's last reply attempting to define length (or space). Defining "length" as "extension" has the problem physics avoids by not defining "length" other than operationally, circular definition -- length is extension; extension is length; length is extension ad infinitum. Mathematics does not define "set". If one says a set is a collection; a collection is a set, here we go round and round again. It took science and mathematics a long time to come to the realization that not everything can be defined. Before, I've mentioned Betrand Russell's epigram "mathematics (and science) is a subject where we don't know what we are talking about" makes this point. Finally, again, we should be wonderfully amazed at the great things we have done and discovered even if we don't really (ultimately) know what we are talking about. The ardent lover makes our point when saying "words can not tell you of the love I have for you". Adding "because we really don't know what 'love' is" (saying "love" is just a glandular response leaves "glandular" and "respone" undefined) would be self-defeating if not self-contradictory. Consider the wonders that "love" accomplishes or can accomplish even if we really don't know what it is.
On second thought: Length can be defined as the quantity of horizontal extension of the physical size of an object in one spatial dimension.

Carlton Lane: I agree with what you said. Einstein's "definition" did not address the metaphysical question what is time itself? Einstein was very proud of his partially correct definition (that any sixth grader could also come up with), and did not admit or know(!) that his "definition" did not address the ultimate question like you pointed out. And some scientists have actually credited Einstein with finally "solving" the great mystery of what is time? !!! So when you said science does not know what time is, I wanted to point out that many  scientists do think they know what time is. So if a atomic clock slows down this would not mean time slowed down?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=33567

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google