In a posting about Electromagnetic Fields, I said that the Universe is not a Metallic Box and there are no standing wave or Electromagnetic Modes.
I also stated that the Universe is not Infinite.
Someone who I can only suppose to be a Theoretician replied:
EVEN (INFINITY) IS FILLED WITH EM ENERGY!
I replied that there is no evidence of Infinity, certainly no measurements of EM on Infinite Distances. I told him that everything I say, I have experimental or observational support.
He replied telling me that I should were a Dunce Hat or something to that effect.
From that should we conclude that certain Physicists are not worthy of whatever they are being paid? Since when are we allowed to talk about what is happening in Infinity as a matter of fact!!!
Stake your position.
At present it is assumed that the universe is infinite and that it is on average of uniform consistency. If that is assumed, then all space is filled with light because it exists around each point in the same way we see it around our planet/galaxy/local group, and is generate locally in every region of the infinite universe - even places that are so far away from us that light from there has not reached us and light from near us ( a long time ago) has never reached there.
I expect someone is looking for standing waves, but that they have not been seen. I think people are looking for light that has done a loop, to investigate whether the universe is folded back on itself, but haven't seen that yet either.
Dear Malcom,
Would you agree with me:
a) that there is no evidence that the Universe is infinite
b) it should be more difficult to justify the creation of an infinite Universe than a finite Universe, in the sense that it is more difficult to justify a partial break on the Law of Energy Conservation and an Infinite Break from the same law.
I say that because all observations (astronomical or otherwise) we have are consistent with this simple model:
The Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.
This means that one just have to explain the mass contained in the initial hypershell, which is finite.
So, there is a model that is consistent with observations, that creates the whole Universe from nothing and that does that without offending any of our laws (including the law of energy conservation).
In summary, we are not allowed to assume an infinite Universe if there is a finite solution to the problem.
By the way, this would be the answer I would had given to the person who called me a Dunce and didn't stay to question my ideas or understand them. Hence, sorry using you as a canvas.
Best regards,
Marco Pereira
Your view is an earth-centred one that assumes that the earth is a special place so that all of the universe is in a sphere centred around it. Most science considers this to be an unreasonable assumption, so assumes that each place in the universe looks the same, leading to a universe with no bounds (although it may be cyclic or curl back on itself).
I personally don't think that it is any more impossible for an infinite break in energy conservation than for a finite break. Neither can be justified!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetics
- Electromagnetic Fields