I am a bad Physicist

[The Introvert]

But I find physics problems interesting. I don't think this is unusual. I have some questions here, maybe some of you could clear up for me.

1. How much do we know about the practicality of Einstein's spacetime? What are some counters to his theory? Conceptual or mathematic?

2. Does matter occupy space, or does it move space? Does space have volume?

3. Does matter create a vacuum?

4. Is absolute zero possible? Theoretically, does it mean that there is no space between particles? Would this be fusion?

More questions depending on the success of this thread.

I'm interested in gravity.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

1. How much do we know about the practicality of Einstein's spacetime? What are some counters to his theory? Conceptual or mathematic?

No idea.

2. Does matter occupy space, or does it move space? Does space have volume?

Matter occupies space. Matter can bend space.

3. Does matter create a vacuum?

A vacuum is zero pressure i.e. no matter exerting a force.

4. Is absolute zero possible? Theoretically, does it mean that there is no space between particles? Would this be fusion?

It means that particles stop vibrating.

 

[just george]

The first thing to understand is that no one really knows the answers, even if they're professors in prestigious universities. Your opinion matters just as much as anyone elses.

But I find physics problems interesting. I don't think this is unusual. I have some questions here, maybe some of you could clear up for me.

1. How much do we know about the practicality of Einstein's spacetime? What are some counters to his theory? Conceptual or mathematic?

Electric universe theory

Unified field theory(ies)

Cymatic universe theory

Holographic universe theory

I think that Einsteins theory is wrong, or at least, significantly flawed, and that a cross between cymatics/holographic is closer to the truth.

2. Does matter occupy space, or does it move space? Does space have volume?

I think that space is everywhere, and matter exists over it, not instead of it, in the same way that words exist on a piece of paper at the same time as the paper.

3. Does matter create a vacuum?

Pure space is a vacuum.

4. Is absolute zero possible? Theoretically, does it mean that there is no space between particles? Would this be fusion?

More questions depending on the success of this thread.

If the universe is cymatic, then any region of the field where all waves cancel out is a region where absolute zero exists.

I'm interested in gravity.

To preempt - do you think that gravity is it's own field, or an effect? (I think it is a gravitational effect which depends on lots of aspects of matter (temperature, spin etc), not a gravitational field with gravity waves as proposed by einstein.

 

[Grayman]

4. Is absolute zero possible? Theoretically, does it mean that there is no space between particles? Would this be fusion?

More questions depending on the success of this thread.

I'm interested in gravity.

4) or a black hole?

 

[Architect]

1. How much do we know about the practicality of Einstein's spacetime? What are some counters to his theory? Conceptual or mathematic?

None. It's been thoroughly proven.

2. Does matter occupy space, or does it move space? Does space have volume?

All of the above obviously.

3. Does matter create a vacuum?

No, obviously vacuum is an absence of matter.

4. Is absolute zero possible? Theoretically, does it mean that there is no space between particles? Would this be fusion?

Actually sub absolute zero has been achieved. Somebody got a few negative milli-K I believe. There are technical reasons why this is possible. No it doesn't mean zero space between particles, that is controlled by the Strong and Weak forces. Fusion is something different.

I'm interested in gravity.

It keeps your drink from floating away.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I think that space is everywhere, and matter exists over it, not instead of it, in the same way that words exist on a piece of paper at the same time as the paper.

Pure space is a vacuum.

This is wrong, and an old an outdated view of space called "Newtonian Space"

It is incompatible with relativity.

A vacuum can not be, it isn't. You can not say that something is without it being something. Sigh.

 

[The Introvert]

This is wrong, and an old an outdated view of space called "Newtonian Space"

It is incompatible with relativity.

A vacuum can not be, it isn't. You can not say that something is without it being something. Sigh.

So as far as we currently know, space is absolutely nothing? It has to be something, because particles can move through it. A median of sorts? Time exists there, right? Wouldn't time be considered something?

None. It's been thoroughly proven.

I think there has been significant quarreling about his theory of spacetime. That it's not perfect. Also, I think you mean it hasn't been disproven.

All of the above obviously.

No, obviously vacuum is an absence of matter.

Are you being condescending or just attempting to appear more intelligent than you actually are? Regarding the 'obvious' tag.

Actually sub absolute zero has been achieved. Somebody got a few negative milli-K I believe. There are technical reasons why this is possible. No it doesn't mean zero space between particles, that is controlled by the Strong and Weak forces. Fusion is something different.

I'm aware of the experiment. I'm not looking for a technicality. I'm looking for actual absolute 0. Is it only theoretically possible? What does it mean if all movement stops? Could it start again?

4) or a black hole?

I know they get really really close, but I don't know if either absolute zero or fusion! Black holes fascinate me. A well of pure condensed matter.

The first thing to understand is that no one really knows the answers, even if they're professors in prestigious universities. Your opinion matters just as much as anyone elses.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that my opinion matters as much as anyone elses, but I understand your point

Pure space is a vacuum.

Why? What are the physics behind this? Propensity towards entropy? But why is that? Why does everything seem to want to diverge?

To preempt - do you think that gravity is it's own field, or an effect? (I think it is a gravitational effect which depends on lots of aspects of matter (temperature, spin etc), not a gravitational field with gravity waves as proposed by einstein.

I think gravity...

Is a force. That exists because logic.

No idea.

I love you Proxy.

 

[doncarlzone]

This is wrong, and an old an outdated view of space called "Newtonian Space"

It is incompatible with relativity.

A vacuum can not be, it isn't. You can not say that something is without it being something. Sigh.

It's actually quite fascinating that nothing can and still is being debated. I suppose 'nothing' is by its definition a philosophical term and to define it empirically is near impossible.

Here are two hours about nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

 

[Rook]

For nothing to exist, the universe should not exist. If one has a vacuum, is it not an extension of spacetime?

 

[Architect]

I think there has been significant quarreling about his theory of spacetime. That it's not perfect. Also, I think you mean it hasn't been disproven.

It can't be disproven, it can only be improved at this point, because it's already been "proved", i.e. verified. The only quibble with GR is that it doesn't agree with QM/Quantum Mechanics. BTW I happened to specialize in GR in my undergraduate days and studied with one of the blokes trying to unify GR with QM.

Are you being condescending or just attempting to appear more intelligent than you actually are? Regarding the 'obvious' tag.

Sorry, that was written condescendingly, not meant to be so.

I'm aware of the experiment. I'm not looking for a technicality. I'm looking for actual absolute 0. Is it only theoretically possible? What does it mean if all movement stops? Could it start again?

with sufficiently perfect laser cooling or whatever I think it's practically possible.

 

[Vrecknidj]

The first thing to understand is that no one really knows the answers, even if they're professors in prestigious universities. Your opinion matters just as much as anyone elses.

Not so.

1) The opinion of the masses, for instance, isn't necessarily correct. We've gotten this advice many times from philosophers and others.

2) The opinion of some people, in some fields, is vastly more relevant than the opinion of other people on the same topic. (For instance, if I'm sick, my physician's opinion is more important and valuable to me than the opinion of the vast majority of other people, especially non-physicians.)