<p>Is there a cosmological model of the evolution of vacuum motion in our universe over time?</p>
<p>Does this model starting from a non-vacuum constitute an advantage compared to the cosmological model of matter?</p>
<p>At Planck's Wall there was not much vacuum but condensed matter in a small space less than 10^-35 m and the closer to the starting anomaly the more vacuum would be absent, so the anomaly begins with a nonempty in this model.</p>
<p>Clearly as we can see the displacement of matter and study it, nothing prohibits in theory to study the displacement of vacuum too.</p>
<p>And the advantage with this model is that the initial anomaly disappears and will start with a non-empty, and we will not have the appearance of infinity which will allow us to find the equation at all...</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T12:23:03.957Z
from this very qualitative description of what you have in mind it is difficult to judge. Anyway, nowhere in the universe there is (or have ever been) perfect vacuum. There's always some atoms, some photons, some neutrinos. So a theory that only describes the empty regions of space would be useless in our very crowded universe, for there are no empty regions.
Prallax
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T12:34:41.980Z
of course, we are not talking about perfection, but empty places exist in our universe, for example between a sun and a sun or galaxy and galaxy, we can consider that there is emptiness and see its movement over time...
newuser10
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T12:45:27.017Z
in time there are two possible observations and that since the first phase of the universe, the standard model studies the movement of matter over time, but it is possible to study the movement of vacuum over time.

clearly the vacuum that I want to study are the places where there is not much matter like between two galaxies or two suns...

Matter is constant over time but vacuum grows over time especially with the expansion of the universe…
newuser10
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T12:50:18.350Z
well, current theories do take into account also the less dense parts of the universe (i.e. between the galaxies). In this sense, they do not only study matter, but also vacuum already
Prallax
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T12:55:25.523Z
Here with this inverted approach, the material can also be considered as a void that is not too empty, the main thing is to make a model that reverses things in relation to the study of the movement of matter but in this case the vacuum would not be constant like matter but this develops exponentially...
newuser10
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T13:00:55.773Z
With these premises, I suspect it would be exactly the same model we are currently using. You would need some sort of density field to quantify how empty is this void in every place. And this density field would probably be tightly linked to the matter density field currently in use, rendering the two theories, mathematically identical. What would you use to quantify how much emptiness is at one point? The inverse of the density? 1-the density (in some units)? The density must be in it somehow
Prallax
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T13:04:08.290Z
compared to the matter model, matter is a constant but here in this model the vacuum increases rapidly, it can give another theory which can make things easier.
newuser10
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T13:09:01.487Z
I feel like we are at an impasse with this new theory unless we start writing in the language of equations, to clarify the concepts that we expressed in the intrinsically ambiguous English language
Prallax
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T13:32:15.183Z
Yes in any case we have all the data in the course of time to write this equation, it remains just an effort to be made for mathematicians to try to formulate equations of this movement to observe...
newuser10
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T20:27:13.913Z
We cannot write your theory for you
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-11T22:49:27.037Z
@ 
planetmaker No I am looking for help to formulate the equations of this model given the large number of data, because even Einstein did not do the theory of relativity alone...
newuser10
<observational-astronomy><astrophysics><cosmology><universe>
Is there a cosmological model of the evolution of vacuum motion in our universe over time?
newuser10
# Is there a cosmological model of the evolution of vacuum motion in our universe over time?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-06-11)

Is there a cosmological model of the evolution of vacuum motion in our universe over time?

Does this model starting from a non-vacuum constitute an advantage compared to the cosmological model of matter?

At Planck's Wall there was not much vacuum but condensed matter in a small space less than 10^-35 m and the closer to the starting anomaly the more vacuum would be absent, so the anomaly begins with a nonempty in this model.

Clearly as we can see the displacement of matter and study it, nothing prohibits in theory to study the displacement of vacuum too.

And the advantage with this model is that the initial anomaly disappears and will start with a non-empty, and we will not have the appearance of infinity which will allow us to find the equation at all...

**Tags:** observational-astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, universe

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: from this very qualitative description of what you have in mind it is difficult to judge. Anyway, nowhere in the universe there is (or have ever been) perfect vacuum. There's always some atoms, some photons, some neutrinos. So a theory that only describes the empty regions of space would be useless in our very crowded universe, for there are no empty regions.  
> **username_0**: of course, we are not talking about perfection, but empty places exist in our universe, for example between a sun and a sun or galaxy and galaxy, we can consider that there is emptiness and see its movement over time...  
> **username_0**: in time there are two possible observations and that since the first phase of the universe, the standard model studies the movement of matter over time, but it is possible to study the movement of vacuum over time.  clearly the vacuum that I want to study are the places where there is not much matter like between two galaxies or two suns...  Matter is constant over time but vacuum grows over time especially with the expansion of the universe…  
> **username_1**: well, current theories do take into account also the less dense parts of the universe (i.e. between the galaxies). In this sense, they do not only study matter, but also vacuum already  
> **username_0**: Here with this inverted approach, the material can also be considered as a void that is not too empty, the main thing is to make a model that reverses things in relation to the study of the movement of matter but in this case the vacuum would not be constant like matter but this develops exponentially...  
> **username_1**: With these premises, I suspect it would be exactly the same model we are currently using. You would need some sort of density field to quantify how empty is this void in every place. And this density field would probably be tightly linked to the matter density field currently in use, rendering the two theories, mathematically identical. What would you use to quantify how much emptiness is at one point? The inverse of the density? 1-the density (in some units)? The density must be in it somehow  
> **username_0**: compared to the matter model, matter is a constant but here in this model the vacuum increases rapidly, it can give another theory which can make things easier.  
> **username_1**: I feel like we are at an impasse with this new theory unless we start writing in the language of equations, to clarify the concepts that we expressed in the intrinsically ambiguous English language  
> **username_0**: Yes in any case we have all the data in the course of time to write this equation, it remains just an effort to be made for mathematicians to try to formulate equations of this movement to observe...  
> **username_2**: We cannot write your theory for you  
> **username_0**: @  username_2 No I am looking for help to formulate the equations of this model given the large number of data, because even Einstein did not do the theory of relativity alone...  

---

## 0 answers

