I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?

Space isn't 'made of' anything. It's empty. That's why it's called 'space'.

Space is made of out more stuff. That's the general gist that I'm getting from "Quantum Gravity" and "A New Kind of Science". Kind of a bizzare concept. They say that all matter in the universe is just a feature of space, so in reality, all that exists is space. That kind of makes sense because space only seems to exist with its relationship to matter. Think of a universe that has absolutely nothing in it. Would space exist?

nothingness.

space time is simple a plane of existance and does not need to be made out of anything but its self.

i thought there was some thing about dark matter... :m:

Isn't there stuff like radiation in space or is it just traveling through it. In that case, space would be a vacuum, wouldn't it?

it depends on how much space we are talking about, if you mean a chunk of space 10^-38m^3 then yes that could eb a vacum filled with nothing at all.

If space was not made up of anything at all then it will be imposible to keep size of one object relative to other.

Humans do U understand what the above line states ?

I would say space is made up of the following :

A gas particle or ion every cubic centimeter or decimeter,
Dark matter,
Dark energy,
Gravitons,
and a whole hell of a lot of neutrinos.

Look out ! More discoveries are being made.

No Facial, those are just things that are in space. Yes, even in the deepest, darkest parts of space you're still going to encounter the occasionally stray photon or subatomic particle, but space itself is not 'made of' and physical substance, so far as we can tell.

Quantum foam. There's no true vacuum. Even in the vacuum of space, particles are being created out of nothing, then destroyed almost instantly.

space is made of measurement

I think space is just what its called. "space" Its what everything else is in.

Hum,
i imagine that <bi>space-time</b> is a product of superstrings.

The strings vibrate in (<i>say</i>) ten dimensions and the`holes` in their topology give rise to the particle families and the different harmonies on them produce individual particles.


<my 2$>
And i also imagine that everything is interchangeable...

<i>Particle</i>-> <i>different particle</i>-> <i>space</i> -> <i>time</i> -> <i>another particle</i>
</my 2$>

No Facial, those are just things that are in space. Yes, even in the deepest, darkest parts of space you're still going to encounter the occasionally stray photon or subatomic particle, but space itself is not 'made of' and physical substance, so far as we can tell.

Woops. I guess the definition of space you were referring to is more of the mathematical concept (volume itself) than what I interpreted, the astronomical (what's in 'outer space').

In that sense, then, space is a concept and is not 'made of' a physical substance, so far as we can tell.

Or not...
see my previous post
and link about superstrings
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

By far, space is made of photons, as in trillions upon trillions more so than atoms, especially if you'd care to account for all of the resting photons, such as those associated with dark-matter and/or of what's surrounding an/or comprising that of a blackhole.

Goto; "Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

or into my URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photons-m3.htm

I've been summarily informed by God that absolutely nothing goes faster than Light speed, however Dr. Wang's god can apparently kick some serious photon butt up to 310 X light speed, although that effort requires an existing conduit or beam (photonic waveguide) and a fairly specific environment as to making that happen.

At least so far the likes of the NEC lab and of their resident photon wizard Dr. Wang have been exceeding the speed of light for years, yet the GR and QM folks are still freaking out because, that accomplishment essentially screws up every conceivable formula they've got, and then some.

As such something, perhaps quantum-string like, has been pushed to 310 X light speed, and as slight as it might be, said photons do manage to carry about a touch of mass.

Space has dark matter, dark energy and mostly hydrogen atoms floating around along with other types of atoms of different elements. It also has other galaxies and nebulas plus pulsars, black holes, neutron stars and a few other exotic things within it. Space is something, not nothing.

i think irish was referring to the "empty" space, rather than the stuff within it. quantum foam sounds about right.

If space is nothing then how can things be relative to eachother or how can all things have same time relative to eachother ie. we should never be able to match two watches ?

Humans will ignore this question.

Even nothing has something in it! You see there's no such thing as "empty" space for even in the empty space atoms exist. Just because you can't see anything doesn't mean that there's "nothing" there. Remember that what is important in life is invisible to your eyes.

At least so far the likes of the NEC lab and of their resident photon wizard Dr. Wang have been exceeding the speed of light for years, yet the GR and QM folks are still freaking out because, that accomplishment essentially screws up every conceivable formula they've got, and then some.Let me use my Sherlock Holmes-like power of deduction to make a few guesses about you.

1. You've never had a college level physics class, or in the very unlikely event that you have, you didn't get beyond the really basic stuff about kinematics and circuits.
2. You don't know anything about linear algebra, partial differential equations, or any of the other kinds of math that are necessary to understand modern physics.
3. You think that you know quite a lot about physics but all of your 'research' has been from popular science books or web pages, not actual textbooks.
4. You don't know the difference between the group velocity and phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave.

Was I wrong about any of that?

Crazy concepts. Is something nothing, is nothing something, and what of something that is not nothing but still nothing. Beyond nothing is nothing which is something different from this nothing. How can nothing have properties, like space and time. Then you're told nothing is something but we can do nothing with it. Well I think this nothing is something, after all I live in all this nothing. Or is it the something inside the nothing that makes it something, so without something there could be no nothing which would make all nothing something. Ohhh my brain..

If Space was nothing then all particles in universe would either had no distance between them or would have been equidistance.

Hey I have no idea how U humans can imagine inertia without Space as something.

BlindMan this is not an essay contests.
Nasor If U come here to thrash people then thrash BlindMan thats all U r good at.

Nasor If U come here to thrash people then thrash BlindMan thats all U r good at.I just get very frustrated with people who know zero about physics, but come here and start making a lot of noise about how relativity is wrong, or some other ridiculous thing, even though they don't know the first thing about it. How can anyone be that arrogant?

Empty space is by far the most occupied by photons.

There are trillions upon trillions more photons than atoms/m3 in "empty space", thus space isn't all that empty, especially if you'd care to include those photons that are nearly resting, which BTW represent mass, and/or perhaps offering the very binder of atoms.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photons-m3.htm

I get very frustrated when know-it-alls don't give a fling puck about the morality of their science, thereby having absolutely no remorse for what could be a perfectly good door-opener, that which should be given some honest consideration.

Obviously some of this borg collective of the "mainstream status quo" are not here to improve upon anything except their pretentious bigotry that's gotten humanity into this space toilet fiasco in the first place.

Whereas others, such as team Hubble and NEC/Wang, offer specific numbers, based upon very how-to-accomplish specifics and thereby well proven test results that'll actually matter to humanity.

The question isn't "what is space occupied mostly of?", it's "what's space MADE out of" What makes space? What causes our perceptions of the 3 dimensions?

Why do we percieve a 3-dimensional space? And how are we able to concieve the lower two dimensions of space? It borders on the philosophical.

It looks like everyone thinks they have the answer.

I think no one has the answer. Maybe there is no answer?

That's the beauty of scientific enquiry - no matter how far you go, you can always look for deeper answers!


But I'm no different to the crowd, really - I also think I have the answer:

Space is made of the same stuff that time is made of.

Pete, surely the word "made of" implies that space is matter? As u know, this is wrong so we cannot ask the question.

It doesn't imply that to me, but I'm an academic used to dealing with abstract models.

Some examples:
A week is made of 7 days.
The Internet protocol suite is made of many protocols and standards including HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP, SNMP, SMB, ASN.1, TCP, UDP, IP, ARP, PPP.
Knowledge is made of experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight (Davenport & Prusak 2000, Working Knowledge, Harvard Press)
An Enterprise Information Management environment is made of the enterprise's strategic plan, the organizational structure, the information system architecture, and current IT opportunities (Benson, Parker, & Trainor 1988, Information Economics, Prentice Hall)

But perhaps the original questioner meant "made of" in a real physical way.

Either way, I think the answer is still "don't know for sure, maybe can't know for sure".

And I still like my answer best:
Space is made of the same stuff that time is made of.

:)

Space is made of the same stuff that time is made of.

:)

Yeah thats usually what I say too but i now try to get people to think for themselves and get them questioning the reality of spatial dimensions!

Pete, surely the word "made of" implies that space is matter? As u know, this is wrong so we cannot ask the question.

Well you could say that light is "made of" photons. And yet photons are dton have mass therefore there isnt any matter.

Well you could say that light is "made of" photons. And yet photons are dton have mass therefore there isnt any matter.

Yeah, the same way u could say that science is 'made of' a mixture of theory and experiment. We have already established that and it was my understanding that THAT was not what the OP meant by those words :)

Well you could say that light is "made of" photons. And yet photons are dton have mass therefore there isnt any matter.
But photons do have energy, which I suspect is the same thing at a lower level.

how about energy? Isn't that in space?

Why do we percieve a 3-dimensional space? And how are we able to concieve the lower two dimensions of space? It borders on the philosophical

Our minds have seen representations of the lower two dimensions, i.e. a picture or movie screen. But if you existed in a two dimensional universe, it would be like trying to look or move out of the movie screen, thus moving into 3 dimensions. Well, actually, wouldn't it be four because of time?

hey U all geniuses,

bradguth,

what is that space made of that is inbetween the photons (or any other particles) in the space ?

I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?


That's a DAMN good question,irishbones !

I have been thinking/questioning along similar lines for many years myself.

Wished I knew the answer to the questionhttp://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Even so....in trying to visually grasp the idea of gravity, I have been thinking of gravity as being space displaced by matter, (that gravity is possibly the result of space (as a real & existing thing)), being like pressure waves that are displaced by matter ....any matter, however small the matter may be.

Yeah, I think that space is much more than nothingness, possibly exactly the opposite of what our limited senses perceive.

Maybe the matter, of which we are made of, is actually just shadows of emptiness and patterns, moving through the super solid space....like the old, proposed idea of an ether.

There are a lot of seemingly crazy ideas out there, but I love to hear them all. Sooner or later, one of the ideas is bound to be right. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Ok, space has a very low concentration of molecules. There are areas in space that have none at all for large portions of it. every one in a while, we have a clump of molecules that came together because of gravity and other forces. A planet can be this clump of molecules. Compared to the overall sizeeof space, these clumps are very small. Space is filled with forces, but actual SPACE is nothingness. Are has a low density of molecules, in between those molecules, there is nothing. Imagine an area that has no molecules at all. That is called space.

Hum,
every point in space is filled with virtual particles.
There is no such thing as empty space.
When we talk about space we realy mean space-time , which is a perhaps ultimately the creation of super strings and the interaction of multi dimensions
(er, IMHO)

If space is nothingness, then how can nothingness have 3 dimensions?

It is possible that the vacuum has a number of different states, each of which has an associated energy; the energy which is demonstrated by the Casimir plates and by the expansion of the universe. In the expansion context this energy has a relationship to the cosmological constant.

Very early in the history of the universe, during the expansionary phase, the vacuum seems to have had a different state to the one it has now;
perhaps at some far distant time in the future the vacuum will have yet another state, which may or may not resemble the vacuum state we recognise today.

I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?

A vacuum isn't made up of anything, although it can have a non-zero ground state.

If space is nothingness, then how can nothingness have 3 dimensions?

Space isn't nothing though. Beyond the universe there is nothingness.

Space has dark matter, dark energy and mostly hydrogen atoms floating around along with other types of atoms of different elements. It also has other galaxies and nebulas plus pulsars, black holes, neutron stars and a few other exotic things within it. Space is something, not nothing.

sounds good to me,its not a REAL vaccum, i think the worrying thing is, if you took all the matter and energy away, there is a space left......it would be very dark, and still three dimensional and time would be there.
I have this funny feeling that space and time are like a mobius strip, wherever you go,the opposite side of space and time are there with you,like a mirror stuck on the back of reality

Space isn't nothing though. Beyond the universe there is nothingness.

Nothing is beyond the universe, just like I can see nothing with my elbow, nothing is blacker than black, and nothing is whiter than white.


"Nothingness" is a made up concept, an attempt to ascribe reality to the null concept 'nothing'.


Physically, empty space time (zero mass-energy density) is about as close to nothing as there is. And even that doesn't exist, if I understand correctly.

Nothing is beyond the universe,

As I said

just like I can see nothing with my elbow, nothing is blacker than black, and nothing is whiter than white.

Im sure, nothingness HAS NO colour and is neither of these things! :D

"Nothingness" is a made up concept, an attempt to ascribe reality to the null concept 'nothing'.

Definitely not just a concept. It is the most stable state of reality IMO. Someday, maybe everything will go back to nothingness when this, rather large fluctuation is over :eek:

Physically, empty space time (zero mass-energy density) is about as close to nothing as there is.

Probably as close as we're going to get in our universe but, IMO, still a very long way off. Just because a bit of space-time does not contain matter or energy doesn't make it nothingness (in the scientific sense of the term).

And even that doesn't exist, if I understand correctly.

It is impossible to observe in our universe but it underlies reality.

lao tzu describes "nothing" as follows....We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;
But it is on the space where there is nothing that the utility of the wheel depends

We turn clay to make a vessel;
but it is the space where there is nothing that the utility of the vessel depends

We pierce doors and windowsto make a house;
And it is on these spaces where there is nothingthat the utility of the house depends.

Therfore just as we take advantage of what is,we should recognise the utility of what is not


.....maybe this should be on a philosophy thread......... :confused:

Hum,
every point in space is filled with virtual particles.
There is no such thing as empty space.


Interesting. Does space exist?

Interesting. Does space exist?

If there was no space, there would be no matter. Space is more fundamental and therefore more important than matter in this universe.

I would say space is made up of the following :

A gas particle or ion every cubic centimeter or decimeter,
Dark matter,
Dark energy,
Gravitons,
and a whole hell of a lot of neutrinos.

Look out ! More discoveries are being made.

But as mentioned above, we are continously discovering stuff that fills up the space we once thought was empty. Could it be possible that there is absolute no free "space" in the Universe(s)?

What is space? Loosely, it is the mass analog of zero (a datum line - in other words; what is not space is mass).
For the above assessment to be valid an authoritative definition of mass will be required – without which space will remain a romantic (if not fuzzy) mathematical construct of physics, taking on a different meaning each time a different phenomenon is presented.

The common view of space as nothingness is defeated by the very fact that we are at present, incapable of measuring nothingness. What would we measure it relative to? Indeed, since even interstellar space is energetic (energy is propagated as light, gravity etc) – the concept of nothingness does not seem to exist and is not provable.

The concept of space as a sea of negative energy was first put forward by Dirac, leading directly to the prediction of the positron. This concept of space has been proven over time to be the most accurate (Casimir plate’s et al).

Whats your take RawThinkTank?

Im sure, nothingness HAS NO colour and is neither of these things! :D

John, please answer these three questions:

What can you see with your elbow?

What is blacker than black?

What is whiter than white?



Now (assuming that you correctly answered "nothing" to those questions), is there a difference between "nothing" and your concept of "nothingness"?

John, please answer these three questions:

What can you see with your elbow?

What is blacker than black?

What is whiter than white?



Now (assuming that you correctly answered "nothing" to those questions), is there a difference between "nothing" and your concept of "nothingness"?

Fair enough. Nothingness is still more than a concept IMO (without saying it exists!).

Space isn't nothing though. Beyond the universe there is nothingness.


Tell me frankly, did U personally bounce off this nothingness when U hit Ur head on at this imaginary edge of the universe or were U dreaming ?

When we reach the edge of universe ( if there is one ) and collide with at a very high speed then how can we collide with nothing, I mean if we do reach something then how can it be nothing, and what will we be touching. What is this edge made up of ?

Tell me frankly, did U personally bounce off this nothingness when U hit Ur head on at this imaginary edge of the universe or were U dreaming ?

When we reach the edge of universe ( if there is one ) and collide with at a very high speed then how can we collide with nothing, I mean if we do reach something then how can it be nothing, and what will we be touching. What is this edge made up of ?

I didn't say it was something. Its hard to explain what i mean by "more than a concept"! Maybe my definition of "concept" is wrong but i mean that, before the universe came to exist, there was nothingness. Nothingness is therefore very real. I have in my head that concept means "not real" but nothingness is definitely real and out there!

nothingness is definitely real and out there!

How can you be so sure? Any volume of space we define contains something (discovered or not discovered). Is it easier to conclude that empty space or nothingness probably does not exist?

John,
So, nothingness is not nothing, right?

How can you be so sure? Any volume of space we define contains something (discovered or not discovered). Is it easier to conclude that empty space or nothingness probably does not exist?

Because the one thing we are sure of is that before that volume of space existed, thre was nothing! Put it this way, if u believe that the universe is infinite in the spatia and time dimnsions, then u are right, there may be no such thing as nothingness.

Nothing is made of anything! There is no substance making up matter, never mind space. The more you try to figure out what anything is made, the more form you reveal. There is never any "substance" to anything. What we call "solid" is only fuzziness. It is an artifact of language that separates "things" from "events".

No I would say nothing is the absence of energy and space-time :)

And i would agree ;)

No I would say nothing is the absence of energy and space-time That might be so, but what would contain this nothingness so that it can be measured? Is it possible to have a volume whose walls lack energy? The more thought we put into solidifying the abstract concept of nothingness, the more it seems to be an impossible state to achieve.

In any case, what you call Space-Time is only a measure of the energy difference measured by two (or more) observers of the same event. The observers must be in reference frames that are moving at different velocities relative to one another; if they moved in the same frame as the event, they'll measure identical energies.
The preceding argument leaves Space-Time out of the definition of nothingness - I would say that, nothingness is the absolute absence of energy.

That might be so, but what would contain this nothingness so that it can be measured? Is it possible to have a volume whose walls lack energy? The more thought we put into solidifying the abstract concept of nothingness, the more it seems to be an impossible state to achieve.

Measurement depends on placing an artificial frame around a phenomenon that is inherently frameless (language does the same thing). Can you give me one example of a "wall" or boundry in the universe? Under magnification, it can be seen that there are no real boundries. Indeed, matter itself is an abstract concept. What physics describes is relationships, not some basic stuff out of which everything is made. So, space is made of measurement, it's an artificial concept formed by the fact that everything doesn't happen in the same spot.

Spidergoat; say you had two mugs sitting on a table a couple of milimeters apart, one filled with boiling water and the other with ice cubes - the equilibrium point between them is a physical boundary. The same holds for magnetic or any other field type. Boundaries do not have to be visible under the microscope, however in all cases, boundaries are points of equilibrium that are describable by physical law. They are points where the energy from one source balances out the other (even if we are describing a ball bouncing off a wall).

Space is made of out more stuff. That's the general gist that I'm getting from "Quantum Gravity" and "A New Kind of Science". Kind of a bizzare concept. They say that all matter in the universe is just a feature of space, so in reality, all that exists is space. That kind of makes sense because space only seems to exist with its relationship to matter. Think of a universe that has absolutely nothing in it. Would space exist?

No.

Hello. There are at least two other dimensions known by science. Easily figurable. Get the maths guys.

http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu375-1.htm

By far, space is made of photons, as in trillions upon trillions more so than atoms, especially if you'd care to account for all of the resting photons, such as those associated with dark-matter and/or of what's surrounding an/or comprising that of a blackhole.

Goto; "Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

or into my URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photons-m3.htm

I've been summarily informed by God that absolutely nothing goes faster than Light speed, however Dr. Wang's god can apparently kick some serious photon butt up to 310 X light speed, although that effort requires an existing conduit or beam (photonic waveguide) and a fairly specific environment as to making that happen.

At least so far the likes of the NEC lab and of their resident photon wizard Dr. Wang have been exceeding the speed of light for years, yet the GR and QM folks are still freaking out because, that accomplishment essentially screws up every conceivable formula they've got, and then some.

As such something, perhaps quantum-string like, has been pushed to 310 X light speed, and as slight as it might be, said photons do manage to carry about a touch of mass.

What is space? Loosely, it is the mass analog of zero (a datum line - in other words; what is not space is mass).
...
Whats your take RawThinkTank?

That would pose a problem of motion of particles. Why would what is not space move at high speeds without being obstructed by space ?

That would pose a problem of motion of particles. Why would what is not space move at high speeds without being obstructed by space ?
The answer to your question depends on what the particles you mention are. Assuming they are matter then, looking at your question with the (I stress) loose description I gave, it won't. The nature of physics (and one of it's greatest shortcomings) is that systems are isolated for analysis - for instance, when we pump up a balloon, we can (safely?) take the ambient pressure as the datum for the pressure in the balloon. In this case, we have isolated the energy in the balloon for study with the ambient pressure as our zero or space. A similar position is taken when we consider mass or matter.

There is a serious flaw in the above approach however, if we realise that there is no such thing as a closed system. Then even a datum point would be truthfuly considered as an integral part of a system and any motion (or other energy flow) would be obstructed in some way (as is observed). The downside to isolating systems is that we cannot see below the datum, leading to ever more elaborate fudges and fixes (e.g - I diverge slightly - seeing uncertainty as a law rather than a robust illustration of the limitations of analytical tools).

In truth pure space is an idealistic abstract.

That might be so, but what would contain this nothingness so that it can be measured? Is it possible to have a volume whose walls lack energy? The more thought we put into solidifying the abstract concept of nothingness, the more it seems to be an impossible state to achieve.

In any case, what you call Space-Time is only a measure of the energy difference measured by two (or more) observers of the same event. The observers must be in reference frames that are moving at different velocities relative to one another; if they moved in the same frame as the event, they'll measure identical energies.
The preceding argument leaves Space-Time out of the definition of nothingness - I would say that, nothingness is the absolute absence of energy.

The what about before the big bang. When the big bang happened, it created space-time AND matter. My definition of nothing is more comprehensive and tells us that only before the big bang, there was nothing.

The what about before the big bang. When the big bang happened, it created space-time AND matter. My definition of nothing is more comprehensive and tells us that only before the big bang, there was nothing.No, there has never been nothing - if there was a big bang, then energy preceded it ...or conservation laws would be broken. The concept of pure nothingness would seem to be an impossibility.
If I may add; the model of classical mechanics (Newtonian) we are taught early on is riddled with absolutes and does a lot to form an early and abiding visual picture of the World that isnt accurate; thats where our strong concepts of absolute nothingness spring from. Hamiltonian mechanics is much more difficult (I don't claim to know it that much), but being based on energy rather than on vectors, would provide a deeper early grounding for us (if there was a way to simplify it for secondary level), especially in areas where conservation is required.
The other thing I have against absolute nothingness is that we've not yet fully explained matter - there are areas like quantum entanglement that fall almost wholly outside of what is presently known...

latest quantum pop science suggests that beyond our baryons and muons there is a blurry set of loops and strings that have frequency but are not energy, have dimension but not mass. some say this could be the ultimate "canvas" that the universe is painted on so to speak, a sort of efervesing frothy sponge of sub-reality.

If anyone can tell me more about a frothy sponge-like sub reality, do tell!

there is a blurry set of loops and strings that have frequency but are not energy, have dimension but not mass This has to be wrong. Anything that has frequency is energetic ...don't read popular science, it'll send you to the doc.

Er,
HeadAches right, if he's referring to the latest version (v5.0?) of m-theory...
Mass, energy & particles are the products of the interaction of multi dimensional membranes...

< quote >
No, there has never been nothing - if there was a big bang, then energy preceded it ...or conservation laws would be broken. The concept of pure nothingness would seem to be impossibility.
< /quote >

Its and old idea that matter/antimatter was created during the Big bang and the slight, billion to one, imbalance in favour of matter is balanced by the `negative energy` gravity... and so on ...so that all the sums, (electrical, rotational, mass energy, time space etc.) cancel out quite neatly to exactly zero...

Basically the universe arose from a `false vacuum` created by the interaction of two 5 dimensional membranes ...

Its and old idea that matter/antimatter was created during the Big bang and the slight, billion to one, imbalance in favour of matter is balanced by the `negative energy` gravity... and so on ...so that all the sums, (electrical, rotational, mass energy, time space etc.) cancel out quite neatly to exactly zero...You've described an equilibrium ...not zero (beware that number!) :)

Doh!
Hum, tnx for the correction...

yeah, the `sum` of the universe today is the same as the `sum`, er, `before` the big bang...(no energy, no time , no space, no momentum no particles etc...)

Interesting discussion here. What is Space made of. Well how do you create A space?
Perhaps we will never find that out. What if Big Bang is just a pop inside an even bigger Universe surrounding ours. There could even be several, there could be infinite.
Superstrings perhaps, that's what I think. We still have a lot of thinking to do. The only place that I know of from where you can create space and a Universe is inside your own mind. just some thoughts of mine. Please don't flame me now... :-) This was my first post.

Spidergoat; say you had two mugs sitting on a table a couple of milimeters apart, one filled with boiling water and the other with ice cubes - the equilibrium point between them is a physical boundary. The same holds for magnetic or any other field type. Boundaries do not have to be visible under the microscope, however in all cases, boundaries are points of equilibrium that are describable by physical law. They are points where the energy from one source balances out the other (even if we are describing a ball bouncing off a wall).
I would suggest that such points are mathematical abstractions, only applicable at certain scales. At the atomic level, such boundries are still penetrated by high-speed particles from space as if the boundry did not exist.

hey U all geniuses,

bradguth,

what is that space made of that is inbetween the photons (or any other particles) in the space ?
-
Photons are NOT "particles", though perhaps near zero-mass dump-trucks that can haul mass about.

Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

The question isn't "what is space occupied mostly of?", it's "what's space MADE out of" What makes space? What causes our perceptions of the 3 dimensions?

How about the notion of "nearly resting photons", thus collectives of "dark-matter"

Since photons are NOT particles, though perhaps acting as near zero-mass dump-trucks that can haul mass about, as such, perhaps a cubic light year worth og somewhat resting photons might actually represent a fair amount of mass, especially since there's trillions upon trillions more of them, than atoms

I've added my "Supposition-101 (photons do not travel)" into the following link

Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

BTW; a gravity wave is in fact another photon, though of a rather low frequency, and thus representing quite a long wavelength.

Since photons are NOT particles, though perhaps acting as near zero-mass dump-trucks that can haul mass aboutSaying photons haul mass about is analogous to "steam hauls liquid water around". A photon has zero mass. When a photon is involved in a collision or comes to rest it becomes matter and has mass.

I would suggest that such points are mathematical abstractions, only applicable at certain scales. At the atomic level, such boundries are still penetrated by high-speed particles from space as if the boundry did not existEquilibriums exist at all scales except conservation laws can be broken. Any high speed particle interacting with a local equilibrium only shifts it with its added energy

hey U all geniuses,

bradguth,

what is that space made of that is inbetween the photons (or any other particles) in the space ?

Obviously you seem to be driving at gravity as being empty space, whereas a significant nullification zone offers the least gravity persay, and the most vacuum of nothing persay (possibly one atom/m3), but actually the nullification zone is simply the focus point or zone of nearly neutralized gravity with respect to something within that frame being least influenced in any one direction more than another, which in itself isn't nothing.

Obviously something very massive could be trapped within or trekking itself through a nullification zone of nearly nothing.

In fact a nullification zone worth of supposedly empty space isn't empty, as it's chuck full of energy that's merely arriving and/or coexisting with perhaps a great many photons that are nearly resting, as an equal gravity match against one another external sources of influence, which could actually represent a great deal of energy, and lots of expansion room for those resting/elongated photons.

Saying photons haul mass about is analogous to "steam hauls liquid water around". A photon has zero mass. When a photon is involved in a collision or comes to rest it becomes matter and has mass.

OK, I like where this is going.

If resting or perhaps those of nearly resting photons of whatever frequency (elongated or not) have mass, can you offer us an example of how much mass?

If resting or perhaps those of nearly resting photons

A photon is never at rest and has no mass - it has momentum and energy.

There is no such thing as a true vaccum. Even in the most matter devoid regions of the universe there is a huge amount of energy. If you want to know more about this do a google search for vacuum energy. There are many papers dealing with the existance and nature of vacuum energy.

If resting or perhaps those of nearly resting photons of whatever frequency (elongated or not) have mass, can you offer us an example of how much mass? I really do not say that there are resting or nearly resting photons. However on photons becoming mass, there are several examples that can be found in particle - antiparticle creation, in excitation/absorbtion, various colission types ...hf=MC^2
A photon is never at rest and has no mass - it has momentum and energy.That's so, but let's not forget that some of the energy of photons can become mass as in the examples above.

Hehe, it's made of the potential for matter to occupy it.

When a photon is involved in a collision or comes to rest it becomes matter and has mass. ...let's not forget that some of the energy of photons can become mass...

No, when a photon is involved in a collision it transfers its energy to that object and dissapears. Photons are never at rest.

Hum,
ok
hf=MC²

Well photons are the messenger `particles` of electromagnetism
When photons are considered point like it has an energy related (Planck's relation) to the frequency of the wave E = hν,
E is the photon energy
h = 6.626 × 10^-34

And i think that ultimately energy is energy, (even if it's momentum) ;)
(your just saying that the photon transfers the energy to another particle , and indirectly that energy may become mass)



< Just a thought... >
i imagine that given high enough energies particles cold be created from the electromagnetism field (4D curved Riemannian manifold ), particles like neutrons and protons...
(It is of course a `probability` field, that dictates how many `virtual` particles are created )
And they have mass ...and if they have mass they can interact with a gravitational field...
(or is it the higgs field interacts with a `particle` to give it mass? Er, and likewise i imaging that Particles could be created from `gravitational energy`)
Anyway...
So if electromagnetism and gravity could interact then that would affect the dynamics of say a black hole, or the sun, where the temperatures (energies) and magnetic fields are enormous...the sun is hot so the value of gravity is lowered...??

< /Just a thought... >

I really do not say that there are resting or nearly resting photons. However on photons becoming mass, there are several examples that can be found in particle - antiparticle creation, in excitation/absorbtion, various colission types ...hf=MC^2
That's so, but let's not forget that some of the energy of photons can become mass as in the examples above.

Once again, around and around we go; If a photon can supposedly transfer energy into something other that becomes mass, how much mass per photon is possible to be obtained by this method?

Can that transference into something other be another photon?

I honestly thought a thread on what space is made of wouldnt make it this far. :)

As for the question of what space is "made of", I like the quantum foam answer. But it still really only describes things that are "in" space.

Should we think of space only as the volume that separates particles of matter or energy? Or does space still exist within the particle itself, i.e. the volume that is currently occupied by the particle?

I am also interested by this discussion of photons becoming or giving rise to mass. How does this happen?

My only guess is that if a photon collides with something and transfers momentum to it, that results in acceleration which would increase the mass of the thing with which it collided. Is that right?

Can that transference into something other be another photon?I am also interested by this discussion of photons becoming or giving rise to mass. How does this happen?The answer to the question both you guys raise is that photons and mass are just different manifestations of the same phenomenon (as hf=MC^2 shows) - oil and water don't mix :)

As for empty space or a vaccuum, you can only measure emptiness in relation to a given quantity of something, however this does not preclude the the existence (within the same volume), of other things outside of our reference system. You look for one thing and miss the rest. Indeed, the more thought that's given to the empty space concept - the more it is revealed to be an abstract impossibility.

I have some limited feedback, and even less knowledge of my own to share, that I've posted the best that I can in spite of all the mainstream flak, as within the following link: Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

This topic of mine used to be in the Physics and Math department, although my absolute distain for folks that can't seem to give an inch, and would just as soon shred my message as though it were another ENRON/Andersen document, or perhaps something other that's bad about our resident warlord (although I think he's done for, so there's not much thrill in beating a dead horse).

I like the term "Quantum Foam", as that might coexist quite nicely with the notions of there being this ocean or soup of conductive photons that utilize the few and far between atomic Oort zones (spinning outer most shells) of atoms, as sort of FIFO packet nodes, thus photons can but do not have to actually travel.

Pour a cup of water into a stream, and as such an additional cup of water becomes available anywhere along that stream. Although, I'll guarantee that it's never going to be the same cup of water.

BTW; you do realize that a gravity wave is merely that of a very low frequency photon, that's traveling along at our rate of velocity, as within our moving frame of existance, thus nearly resting by way of most photon standards.

Another good question might become; how many photon/gravity waves coexist between us and that of the sun?

If there's only one such gravity wave, obviously is packs quite a punch.

you do realize that a gravity wave is merely that of a very low frequency photon, that's traveling along at our rate of velocity, as within our moving frame of existance, thus nearly resting by way of most photon standards.

Why then does the force of gravity follow the inverse square law while photons do not? Why do photons give a 'push' when transfering their energy to an object while gravity gives a little 'pull?'

How can they be the same thing yet exhibit different properties?

Really Brad, do you ever think before you write something?

Why then does the force of gravity follow the inverse square law while photons do not? Why do photons give a 'push' when transfering their energy to an object while gravity gives a little 'pull?'

Just quietly, Q... are you aware that the photon is the carrier particle for the electromagnetic force?

(ref: Hyperphysics (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3))

Yes, but notice that Brad did not. ;)

Space is made of space.

Hum,
an apple is made of water (er, plus a few extra bits).

(to recap)
Is that a ten dimensional space?

And is it possible to have a universe without space in it, or without particles or time?

Space isn't what it appears to be at first sight.It has more intricate and deeper structures which can then open possible speculation into a "new" kind of matter.
What space is or isn't made up of should not be an immediate comparison of what earth and other planets are like.

Could space be unfulfilled potential ?

As more quantum states are measured into existance, space stretchs to accomodate. There are magnitudes more potential states (if not infinitly) than 'real' states, so the amount of space needed would always be vastly more than the matter it contained.

kula

Quantum foam. There's no true vacuum. Even in the vacuum of space, particles are being created out of nothing, then destroyed almost instantly.

Hello

I was just browsing and came across this forum. Your view is interesting. Would you say that at the point of the big bang space was empty. Because if everything we have today all came from the big bang then it was empty.

Then again isit true that perhaps the space itself was created by the big bang.

I say this because when the bang happend there must have been a space the bang to happen in.

I do not fully understand the copect of quantum foam. However what I would like to know if you can shed some light on it is if you could take 1 cubic metere of space and suck everything out of it. when i say everything i mean things that we understand like simple matter light, xrays etc. then what would be left behind.

I wonder could it at all be possible that dark matter or dark energy be the blank cavas onto which the picture is painted using matter that we can register and mesure like it were paint.

Hi jimjam,
>><i>1 cubic metre of space and suck everything out of it</i>

You forgot the virtual particles , and `time` - `space` - `gravity`...

Then you would have a <b>void</b>

This <b>void</b> is like a calm sea, but by chance, instabilities can occur and waves/troughs start to form; these would be like <i>+1</i> and <i>- 1</i> (<i>adding up to zero</i>)

So the `waves` and troughs can happen from <i>nothing</i>; that is the quantum foam...
A boiling sea that is full of energy.

The universe is thought to have occurred in a void and through </i>quantum fluctuations</i> formed a small bubble that quickly blew up.
It blew up to make a huge bubble that was filled with space- time (and energy) that became our universe.

However, that is just my simple view of it. (Others may disagree)

by jimjam:

"I do not fully understand the copect of quantum foam. However what I would like to know if you can shed some light on it is if you could take 1 cubic metere of space and suck everything out of it. when i say everything i mean things that we understand like simple matter light, xrays etc. then what would be left behind."
================================================== =============

A gravitational field.

when i say everything i mean things that we understand like simple matter light, xrays etc. then what would be left behind.

Space atoms. Weird to think of space as something discrete and absolute. It turns out that there really is only so many times you can divide a measurement of distance.

Hi jimjam,
>><i>1 cubic metre of space and suck everything out of it</i>

You forgot the virtual particles , and `time` - `space` - `gravity`...



Hello blobrana

You say that time space and gavity would be left. i dont know much about virtual particles. but I thought that gravity was dependant on matter. like here on earth.

time. I have a theory that time requires some movement to take place so that it may be measured in time. if there is nothing to move then how would time be measured. the clock itself has to be made of something.

space. this is the one i am not sure of. if you take everything away there is still a space is there not. and if there is then what is it made of.

they say that the universe is still expanding. if light is the fastest thing and it is still traveling then what is it traveling in or through.

please forgive me if my views seem confused. i have tought of these things alone but have never be able to discuss. and learn different views.

space is not space at all, it is full, full of matter, dark matter, light matter. It is full of hydrogen, of rock, of ice. It is full of sound, of light, of radio waves. But, in space, nobody can hear you scream!

I forget what the "everything" is made of again, oooh yea nothing, we call it energy, and even more then that, energy in space. so if space can be bent with gravity on a large scale and shown to be smooth why wouldnt it be just absolutely chaotic on the small scale, and on the absolute smallest harmonic. Space is frictionless directionless energy that is relative to other motions of space, in space, and it creates friction at some level of interaction. This is the only way logical (by the way the only absolute answer to any universe is that it has to fallow every rule it cannot break) breakthroughs in mathmatics and simotaniously in physics can occur. To have "no limits" is to "know limits", and you find the only real truth.

Basically space is the matrix of boundary mathmatics, and boundary mathmatics is the building block to "the theory of everything" even more shrouded in mystery if used with the quantum space foam theory, at a much larger scale (btw space foam only works when applied to the perseption of multiverse, even said by the guy who wrote the theory). And quantum is like saying yes and no at the same time, or saying the universe exists and cannot exist at the same time, and understanding the balances of it. Boundary mathmatics is the actuall understanding of why exist must be from not exist, and is really an apex in phylosphical understanding.

Space is whatever we want it to be.

How? I want it to be honeycomb ice cream flavour? Space is whatever we want it to be is a bit of a daft thing to say.

@Red Devil
Strange you actually describe the classic string theory that describes a honeycomb of very small (10^-42) multi dimensional loops of energy as being the smallest `bits` of space.
Each loop vibrates in time and different dimensions and `create` any flavour of particles/force/space.


But to answer another question, (jim jim) that is what we remove from the 1 m² of space to get the void…

I'm not just a pretty face ;) Seriously, it was just coincidence, or was it something else? Hmmmmmm.

Can "nothing" exist anywhere in the universe. Meaning is there anywhere in the universe that consists of absolutly nothing. I don't think so. I think that there always has to be something even if it is just the "fabric" of space time.

Space is nothingness that allows everything else to exist, infact its the nothingness thats the creator of all that exist, our motive is to realise this that what allows everything else to exist. The Space the nothingness has'nt necesserily got to be dark its just the absence of light that you may indicate as darkness. in Quran it mentions that it is Allah from whom everything came from and it is Allah to whome everything will return. █▓▒░ ░▒▓█ this is how its like to see the life. it depends on where you are to know where you have to go.If u are in light u have to find darkness and if you are in darkness u have to find light because life is all about changes and that which doesnt change is said to be dead. In Quran the description of the creator is like Say that Allah is one and only (nothingness is ONE) He is absolute and eternal (Nothingness is absolute and eternal) He begets not neither was begotten (True that) And There is nothing like it (and heres the point). We muslims Glorify our lord not endarken it. u see light only when it reflects from matter but we all know that light travels through space and there is light in space so why endarken nothing? Glorify the nothingness because it is the uncomprehended Lord of All that exists and darkness denotes disbelief in what actually exists but is not seen. Can we see ray of lights while they are travelling? but we cannot deny their existence. nothingness created the existing and we in the existing are to realise what allows all of us living or dead physical matters to exist.

regards
AK

Gee AK, you really dug up an old thread. You should start your own thread in "comparative religion". Your ideas are not actually scientific in that they call upon the supernatural. Science does not include dogma or the supernatural at this time :).

There is not a single scientific fact that goes against the Quran. I can challenge you on that. I was taught in school that the sun is stationery, but according to Quran its said that sun rotates in its own axis, and sceince now realises that the sun actually rotates. how do you prove that 1400 years ago and i am saying this because its scientific teachings taught in Quran. And even nothingness isnt the glorious God because its comprehended and God is uncomprehended. who could say these scientific facts 1400 years ago, and the many facts that are yet to be discovered. Respect to all relgions and suggest to find answers in Quran.

AK

Thats fine. What I am saying is SciForums who hosts these message boards and discussion forums is set up with an intended structure. The design of that structure is to bring people together who are interested in discussing various topics. The topics are broken down into logical categories. Start at the top of the structure by going to this link: http://www.sciforums.com/index.php?

Read every category and select the one that best fits what you want to talk about. In this case, select "Religion". Click on that category and you will see a box that says "New Thread". Click it. Enter a subject like "I am trying to spread the use of the Quran". Then do your best selling job :).

QW

I would say space is made up of the following :

A gas particle or ion every cubic centimeter or decimeter,
Dark matter,
Dark energy,
Gravitons,
and a whole hell of a lot of neutrinos.

Look out ! More discoveries are being made.

Link?

Space is not made of anything.
1111

...except "the vacuum".

gases, I would assume. Even then it might still have particles which are just so small we have not had the tools to observe them with.

You don't believe in fundamental particles, Muslim?

You might as well say "What is nothing made of?"
1111

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Emptyspaceandenergydensity1.jpg?t=1230497312
Adapted from my Aether, Mass, and Gravity thread :).

Space is not made of anything.

True, and it is only "made up" of whatever particle(s) moving through it at any given time.

No Facial, those are just things that are in space. Yes, even in the deepest, darkest parts of space you're still going to encounter the occasionally stray photon or subatomic particle, but space itself is not 'made of' and physical substance, so far as we can tell.
Light has a certain speed thru the vacuum of space, any stray protons have a certain mass, and/or charge. While it's certainly possible to imagine universes where different laws apply, anywhere you go within this one they do. Is 'Space", then, the medium in which the laws of physics as we know them apply?

Cheese.

You don't believe in fundamental particles, Muslim?

Yes I do, there are particles its a fact, and a scientific fact too, you can't deny stuff like this, its stupid as saying the earth is flat, or the universe is geocentric. Or god created humans.

Qwantum wave, i aint doing no selling job here, i know what threads and forums are about, its ur low judgement towards people, to be honest, i am talking about the topic about the space here, and i am giving proofs from the Quran, the only criteria to judge everything else! talking about structure i know how forums work and whats and excuse me i am not to be told how to talk, u accept the truth or not i leave it on you how u find it, but dont try to change me for that which i beleive isnt right!, anyway dunt want this place to get messed up and am not to extend this issue anymore, i request the admin to please delete this message like almost 48 hours if its disturbing the continuity of the topic.
thanks
AK

OK, I stand corrected.

in Quran it mentions that it is Allah from whom everything came from and it is Allah to whome everything will return.

Great, another indoctrinated Muslim idiot claiming his cult made everything including sliced bread. :mad:

I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?

Snips and snails and pupy dog tails. The correct answer is that nobody knows for sure; however, raw empty space (that includes the subtraction of virtual particles) is at least made up of three dimensions (x, y, z). Time t may very well be a dimension as well and if M-theory is correct then the total dimension count space is comprised of may be anywhere from 10-22.

What is area made of?
1111

Sounds like you have a new thread topic.

What is area made of?
1111

all things we can speak of are rendered abstract in doing so.

of course we can agree that the subject of our conversation is more substantial or visceral than the act of thinking and speaking it would necessitate, but fundamentally even this generally implicit agreement is itself lacking physical substance.

so it's made of "the abstract". perhaps if you can consider 'the abstract' as some form of topography, perhaps we could find a feature that either on it's own or in context of other features, is naturally "area".

maybe more specifically area is made of rules.

doesnt space have a resistance or something? Or a capacitance/current ratio Like 200 ohms?? If you hold up two wires you can measure something





Damn wish i hadnt slept through that EE lecture

Hello irishbones

Space is made up of gravitational potential.

:)

Space is made up of 'final frontier'.

Everybody knows that.

I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?

Space is made of energy. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Point A and Point B = A---B. The reason for this is because the energy between the two points is less.

Distance can be represented by the energy it takes to bridge the gap. So space itself is the "energy" of the gap between two points. The actual visual of space is illusion because it's all about energy.

Time = Energy, Change = Energy, and Consciousness is the universe itself because all time and change exist only in our mind based on the vulnerability of our perceptions and the limits of our lifespan. Energy is timeless. Distance doesn't actually exist outside of perception. Space is energy and can be better thought of as a river which flows in certain directions and the flow we call it gravity. Gravity influences time by influencing the energy of space around an object.


Any scientists here to check what I just said? thats the most simple way I could explain.

A simplified way to understand how I think of space is, say we are on earth and I need to get to California? The distance between me and California I represent by the amount of gas it takes to get from here to Cali using a car or the amount of fuel to get to Cali by plane. The air and weather conditions also influences the rate of speed an object flows through time, as does the amount of energy. A faster moving object flows through time faster and time slows down around it. On the other hand if an object has extreme gravity so that it sucks you into it at the speed of light, such as a black hole, the time around that object will be completely distorted.


If you are falling towards the earth, the longer you fall the faster you fall, gravity pulls you towards the earth but its the energy of gravity which influences the river of space and the river flows toward the earth because the earth is like an object or pebble in a river of space.

Space isn't "made" of anything in that nothing makes it up. Space is an entity consisting of the three 3 spatial dimensions.

Would be the same as asking what time is made from :rolleyes:

Space isn't "made" of anything in that nothing makes it up. Space is an entity consisting of the three 3 spatial dimensions.

...Yes, and after we agree with the dimensionality of space there is the question of what is in space.

The easy answer is matter. If we agree that matter is in space we have the possibilities that space between objects of matter is empty, or space between objects of matter contains something that isn't matter.

If we take the first possibility that space between objects of matter is empty we might go a step further and say that matter is composed of fundamental particles and the space between matter and or between fundamental particles is empty. We would have to say that the forces that exist between fundamental particles are traversing empty space by way of their fields. Fields would emanate from the particles and interact.

So fundamental particles would emanate fields that allow them to interact with each other via forces that are a characteristic of their fields.

If we take the second possibility that space between objects of matter contains something that isn't matter we might go a step further and say that space contains energy density and the forces that exist between fundamental particles traverse space containing energy because their fields affect the energy density of that space.

So the fundamental particles would interact with each other by how those particles affect the energy density of that space. This would imply that fundamental particles could interact with the energy density of space.

Space isn't "made" of anything in that nothing makes it up. Space is an entity consisting of the three 3 spatial dimensions.

Would be the same as asking what time is made from :rolleyes:


"Nothing" is something because there is no such thing as "nothing". And Time is energy because time is measurement of change itself. Change requires energy (duh), because change is the transofmration of energy from one state to another, because nothing changes if nothing moves, and all movement in the universe requires energy which means change/time is measured energy.

Space is not an entity, it's an energy state, just like how water can become ice, but you can have ice which floats on water on the north pole, because the water is in different states. Space is the water of the universe while the planets are the ice. It's all one thing, and space is a thing therefore it is energy and this is the only way to make sense of dark energy and dark matter.

The observable 3d universe contains far more energy than can be explained by saying space is empty, so it's a "thing", and the debate is what thing it is.

"Nothing" is something because there is no such thing as "nothing".

How can nothing be something if there is no such thing as nothing? I'm lost with this sentence :cool:

And Time is energy because time is measurement of change itself. Change requires energy (duh), because change is the transofmration of energy from one state to another, because nothing changes if nothing moves, and all movement in the universe requires energy which means change/time is measured energy.

I wouldn't say time is energy just because it is a a measurement of change? Don't see how that follows?

Space is not an entity, it's an energy state, just like how water can become ice, but you can have ice which floats on water on the north pole, because the water is in different states. Space is the water of the universe while the planets are the ice. It's all one thing, and space is a thing therefore it is energy and this is the only way to make sense of dark energy and dark matter.

So the analogy is that matter is "frozen" space?

The observable 3d universe contains far more energy than can be explained by saying space is empty, so it's a "thing", and the debate is what thing it is

Which can be explained by dark energy and dark matter but I don't think these are equal to space.

Einstein theorized that space is curved; that gravitation can be accounted for by the distortion of space by mass and that light bends to follow this curvature of space. The first experimental observation to confirm this hypothesis with carried out by observing starlight near the Sun during an eclipse in 1919. But what exactly is distorted and what is it about mass that causes it to distort.

Quantum mechanical theory postulated that everything in the observable Universe (let's forget about Dark Energy and Dark Matter for a now even though they seem to make up 75% and 20% of the Universe respectively; but are not directly observable) can be accounted for by the interaction of particles. Fermions - eg. quarks and leptons make up matter and Bosons which are the carriers of Force - eg. photons and gluons (which bind quarks together) These have all been observed and form what we refer to as the Standard Model - except for the carrier of Gravity and therefore that which causes matter to be able to distort space. This theoretical Particle although not yet observed - maybe later this year; but not yet - has been named the Higgs Boson. It is sometimes called the God particle.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as applied to particle physics, states that both the position and energy level of any individual particle cannot be simultaneously determined. Particles at any specific energy level exist in Superposition state - their position can only be expressed as a probability. While this seems like meaningless theoretical paradox - it has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments. The only time something like an electron or a star or you and I can take on a concrete existence is by breaking the uncertainty principle through observation. An Electron only exists "HERE" if by observing it we cause it to be "HERE". Who then observes the Universe - that would have to be GOD. Therefore Space and everything we know is called into existence - is made of GOD.

Forever

It's not made out of the same kind of stuff as particles, I think.
There is no loss of space when a particle comes into being.
Unless one of the dimensions that we don't notice is lost.

I wonder if it can be converted into something else,
just like you can convert mass into energy.

Einstein theorized that space is curved; that gravitation can be accounted for by the distortion of space by mass and that light bends to follow this curvature of space. The first experimental observation to confirm this hypothesis with carried out by observing starlight near the Sun during an eclipse in 1919. But what exactly is distorted and what is it about mass that causes it to distort.The bending of the path of photons was predicted by Einstein and was confirmed by capturing the positions of stars as their light passed close to the sun. The cause of the curved path of the light was not determined, only that the prediction of its path was confirmed by observation. A massless photon would be affected by the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of the mass of the sun. On the other hand, the path of a photon with any mass at all would be bent toward the sun by gravity.
Quantum mechanical theory postulated that everything in the observable Universe (let's forget about Dark Energy and Dark Matter for a now even though they seem to make up 75% and 20% of the Universe respectively; but are not directly observable) can be accounted for by the interaction of particles. Fermions - eg. quarks and leptons make up matter and Bosons which are the carriers of Force - eg. photons and gluons (which bind quarks together) These have all been observed and form what we refer to as the Standard Model - except for the carrier of Gravity and therefore that which causes matter to be able to distort space. This theoretical Particle although not yet observed - maybe later this year; but not yet - has been named the Higgs Boson. It is sometimes called the God particle.
True, and if the LHC at CERN detects evidence of Higgs decay then there will be some very happy and relieved scientists. Like you say, that is in the future, maybe this year or next giving time for repairs and data analysis. Until evidence of the Higgs is detected, the cause of gravity is unknown. That would be fine since we have the curvature of spacetime to explain gravity if it wasn't for the fact that spacetime fails in the Planck regime. That failure and the tantalizing results of lessor accelerators is behind the motivation for investment in the LHC.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as applied to particle physics, states that both the position and energy level of any individual particle cannot be simultaneously determined. Particles at any specific energy level exist in Superposition state - their position can only be expressed as a probability. While this seems like meaningless theoretical paradox - it has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.One experiment that I am aware of demonstrated (within the limits of the instruments and logic of the experiment) that light (photons) were not polarized until observed. The experimenter said they had confirmed that the wave form is a set of probabilities and that the photon does not have both location and momentum until observed. This conclusion is exactly what the Uncertainty is all about. Not that we are unable to detect both the location and momentum of a photon by observation, but in fact the photon does not have individual location and momentum at all until one of those two characteristics is established by observation. If that experiment is taken as Gospel then as you say ...
The only time something like an electron or a star or you and I can take on a concrete existence is by breaking the uncertainty principle through observation. An Electron only exists "HERE" if by observing it we cause it to be "HERE".However, one of my favorite sayings about Uncertainty is that the moon is still there even if we don't observe it. The point is that whether science says that particles themselves have or don't have both characteristics of location and momentum at the same time, groups of those particles have presence whether we observe them or not.
Who then observes the Universe - that would have to be GOD. Therefore Space and everything we know is called into existence - is made of GOD.This statement identifies the boundary between science and religion. The supernatural is not a part of science and the scientific method specifically excludes it.

On the other hand, the knowledge of whether Uncertainty is the result of the fact that there is no separate location and momentum of particles, or if that Uncertainty is simply the result of reaching the limits of observability itself is not answered yet and may never be answered.

Until then the boundary between science and religion is established between the limit of our ability to observe and our unlimited ability to imagine.

Space is .....

Space is a boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.[1] Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of the boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. In mathematics spaces with different numbers of dimensions and with different underlying structures can be examined. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the universe although disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.

WIKI

I think that there are a large number of objections that people might take up with that definition.
Nearly every word, in fact.
One objection being: Why should people think of space as a concept any more than tables, chairs etc?
Are you sure that you didn't make up this definition yourself, Cosmic?:)
Have you got a link to it?

The only time something like an electron or a star or you and I can take on a concrete existence is by breaking the uncertainty principle through observation.

It is impossible to break the uncertainty principle. Even when we observe.

Space is literally nothing. Since the universe began and occupied this "nothing", space inside the universe has gravity, EMR, atomic particles, etc travelling through it. "Curved space" is the effects of gravity travelling through space. You cannot curve "nothing".

It is impossible to break the uncertainty principle. Even when we observe.That is true if you look at the event as it is perceived at the retina of our eyes by the impact of the photons that bounce off of the object or are emitted by the object and that subsequently strike the retina of our eye.

The question is more about the nature of the particles as they perform their roles as particles of mass. Uncertainty has come to mean that those particles participating in the presence of the mass do not have location or momentum, and further, they don't need location and momentum as individual characteristics. They only need to continually interact with all of the other particles in the mass to represent the presence of the mass.

At the moment of interaction, the location and momentum is established for the particles involved in that interaction, but what happens after that interaction again falls into uncertainty until the next interaction. This is how we can say that the moon is there even if we don't observe it. We know that the particles that make up the moon are continually interacting, and that at the instant of each interaction, each particle displays a momentum and location and establishes their presence. Therefore, the location and momentum of the moon is the sum of all of the interactions that are continually taking place.

Observation does not determine the location or momentum of particles interacting within a distant mass. That is determined by interactions between particles within the distant mass. Observation establishes either the location or the momentum of the photon that strikes our eye or our instruments.

All of these interactions take place in space. The finite speed of light and the dimensionality of space are measures that we use as we make sense out of what we observe.

That is true if you look at the event as it is perceived at the retina of our eyes by the impact of the photons that bounce off of the object or are emitted by the object and that subsequently strike the retina of our eye.

Actually it is true all the time whether we observe or not. The uncertainty principle is deeper than just not being able to measure momentum and location at the same time because of the effects of photons on the system.

Heisenberg meant it to mean that when you know one variable, there is no other definite value for the other - only a probability which gets fuzzier the more you measure the value of the other variable.

Actually it is true all the time whether we observe or not. The uncertainty principle is deeper than just not being able to measure momentum and location at the same time because of the effects of photons on the system.

Heisenberg meant it to mean that when you know one variable, there is no other definite value for the other - only a probability which gets fuzzier the more you measure the value of the other variable.I know. But when not observed, particles still have a presence in the mass that they occupy. The presence of each particle establishes the presence of the mass. On that basis I say the moon is there (has presence) even if we don't observe it.

Let's see if we have any agreement ... Do you agree the moon has presence even if we don't observe it?

If so, then do you agree that each particle in the moon also has presence at the instant of its interaction with other particles, though there is no observation?

If so, then do you agree that Heisenberg did not mean there was uncertainty about the presence of a particle. The uncertainty is about the specific characteristics of each particle. When not observed, we don't know either the momentum or location of a particle, but we know that the mass has presence that is established by the interactions of its particles.

Do you agree that in order for two particles to interact there would be a location where that interaction takes place? Do you agree that when particles interact at a location, the momentum of each particle determines the outcome of that interaction?

I know. But when not observed, particles still have a presence in the mass that they occupy. The presence of each particle establishes the presence of the mass. On that basis I say the moon is there (has presence) even if we don't observe it.

Let's see if we have any agreement ... Do you agree the moon has presence even if we don't observe it?

Of course

If so, then do you agree that each particle in the moon also has presence at the instant of its interaction with other particles, though there is no observation?

Agreed

If so, then do you agree that Heisenberg did not mean there was uncertainty about the presence of a particle.

Agreed

The uncertainty is about the specific characteristics of each particle. When not observed, we don't know either the momentum or location of a particle, but we know that the mass has presence that is established by the interactions of its particles.

Absolutely

Do you agree that in order for two particles to interact there would be a location where that interaction takes place?

Yes

Do you agree that when particles interact at a location, the momentum of each particle determines the outcome of that interaction?

Amonst other variables, momentum will determine the outcome of an interaction yes.

Anyway, all this started simply because I said that the uncertainty principle could not be broken - ever. I did not mean this in that we could never be certain of an object (or even a particles) presence if we didn't observe it.

Are we agreed then?

...

Amonst other variables, momentum will determine the outcome of an interaction yes.

Anyway, all this started simply because I said that the uncertainty principle could not be broken - ever. I did not mean this in that we could never be certain of an object (or even a particles) presence if we didn't observe it.

Are we agreed then?I could see how you might view this brief exchange as irrelevant relative to your proper and constructive statement.

When a particle has location it is said to be a point in space and when a particle has momentum it is said to be in the form of a wave without a particular location. By those definitions a particle can never be a point in space and a wave at the same time, hence Heisenberg's uncertainty principle :).

But there is one further consideration and that is the relationship between the point and the wave. I interpret quantum mechanics to be saying that the particle (point space) is when the wave or waves are concentrated into a point, and when the energy of the point becomes the wave again it has frequency that is an expression of its energy but no point location. This could mean that the wave collapses into a point and expands out of the point space and becomes a wave again. That connection seems to be missing from QM. If there is such a connection then the force that drives the transition is also missing.

Maybe there is one more level of particle and force that is common among the fundamental particles of the standard particle model but at a lower level common to all of the fundamental particles? If so, then the missing force could be the force that unifies the forces of nature.

No need to respond since I am getting off topic but I just wanted to explain the thinking behind our brief exchange from my perspective.

I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?

I asked my indian cousin and he said " Rice and Chicken". Not sure if any one can confirm it or not?:m:

This whole thing is just plain goofy.
1111

Space is literally nothing. Since the universe began and occupied this "nothing", space inside the universe has gravity, EMR, atomic particles, etc travelling through it. "Curved space" is the effects of gravity travelling through space. You cannot curve "nothing".

Nothing is an absence of anything / everything. That includes length, width, height, time, etc. Clearly space requires these properties for content to exist in it; hence, space is alot of things but it's certainly not "nothing".

This invalidates your statement that space cannot be curved. It certainly can. Also, the universe didn't expand into what we know as "space". It's "volume" is made up of space (the universe has actual boundaries).

I asked my indian cousin and he said " Rice and Chicken". Not sure if any one can confirm it or not?:m:

Would that be chicken tikka, korma, madras, vindaloo or phal?

Mmmm getting hungry now - love indian :p

Nothing is an absence of anything / everything. That includes length, width, height, time, etc. Clearly space requires these properties for content to exist in it; hence, space is alot of things but it's certainly not "nothing".

This invalidates your statement that space cannot be curved. It certainly can. Also, the universe didn't expand into what we know as "space". It's "volume" is made up of space (the universe has actual boundaries).

If we believe the physicists, it is also capable of expanding faster than the speed of light.
How do they know that it is not everything else shrinking?

If we believe the physicists, it is also capable of expanding faster than the speed of light.

Correct.


How do they know that it is not everything else shrinking?

Light is being stretched into the red spectrum. Shrinking would result in a different color.

I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?
Sticky gooey stuff!

Sticky gooey stuff!

Lot's of black sticky gooey stuff with a sprinkling of white salt :D

Space is made out of dimensions.

Crunchy Cat. Before the universe began, however, there was literally nothing, which occupied no space. Then we have the equivalent of a slow motion explosion with matter everywhere. It has filled the nothing with lumps of material, EMR, atoms, etc. There was never any "space" included in the origin (as in the crap about folded space in a singularity). On the smallest scale, there is still nothing but a bit further up, it is polluted by photons, atomic particles, etc.

If space can be curved as you dogmatically quote, then it is a material. You need to explain how we can start off with everything in a point source and now we have sufficient space for a universe allegedly 158 billion light years across. Where has all the space come from and where is it coming from as expansion continues? Space stretching is garbage. Nothing can stretch like that. Even minor stretching would change basic laws (speed of light, nuclear forces, etc).

How do we know the universe has actual boundaries? The CMB might be a haze due to distance, since it is the same temperature as space away from stars (2.7K) and not thousands of degrees as "it should be". Billions of trillions of stars giving off EMR and particles for billions of years could do it. They don't just vanish.

Does gravity really exist or is really an effect caused by massive bodies curving space as some dogmatics mindlessly claim?

Crunchy Cat. Before the universe began, however, there was literally nothing...

Feel free to show evidence or even a scientific theory supporting this.


Then we have the equivalent of a slow motion explosion with matter everywhere. It has filled the nothing with lumps of material, EMR, atoms, etc. There was never any "space" included in the origin (as in the crap about folded space in a singularity). On the smallest scale, there is still nothing but a bit further up, it is polluted by photons, atomic particles, etc.

Uh no. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about but it doesn't correspond to any observation or theory I have heard of.


If space can be curved as you dogmatically quote, then it is a material.

If by material you mean atoms then no. If you mean some kind of physical information then absolutely 100% correct.


You need to explain how we can start off with everything in a point source and now we have sufficient space for a universe allegedly 158 billion light years across.

Assuming it was a point source, it would have had alot of energy... enough for universe to continue expanding as it is today.


Where has all the space come from and where is it coming from as expansion continues?

It's coming from energy that's already part of our universe... unless there is an outside energy source feeding it somehow.


Space stretching is garbage. Nothing can stretch like that. Even minor stretching would change basic laws (speed of light, nuclear forces, etc).

Technically it's expanding. That is more points of space are being added to the whole (presumably converted from existing energy).


How do we know the universe has actual boundaries? The CMB might be a haze due to distance, since it is the same temperature as space away from stars (2.7K) and not thousands of degrees as "it should be". Billions of trillions of stars giving off EMR and particles for billions of years could do it. They don't just vanish.

Because it is expanding. An purely unbounded structure would not expand or contract (but it could have a finite segment within it that could... which would be bounded consequently).


Does gravity really exist or is really an effect caused by massive bodies curving space as some dogmatics mindlessly claim?

That it exists is self evident. What it is remains a mystery.

That it exists is self evident. What it is remains a mystery.
We know what it is. It is some form of energy which increases as mass accumulation increases - that is, the strength of the energy is directly proportional to the density of the objects which contain the energy.

What we don't know is exactly how gravity works, that is, what is the connection between the energy and the action the energy performs.


Btw, who said we don't have gravity? Chances are we do, but it is so small compared to the planet that it becomes imperceptible....

We know what it is. It is some form of energy which increases as mass accumulation increases - that is, the strength of the energy is directly proportional to the density of the objects which contain the energy.

A definition of "what" it is would include what it is composed of for at least one level of granularity. For example, water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom.


What we don't know is exactly how gravity works, that is, what is the connection between the energy and the action the energy performs.

There's alot of assumptions in that statement.


Btw, who said we don't have gravity? Chances are we do, but it is so small compared to the planet that it becomes imperceptible....

I don't know... where did you read that?

Look spacetime is made of a soup of virtual particles. Its has dimensions 3 and 1 temporal, so these dimensions are considered physical by physicists. That answers the question.

Space is not empty, or just space. It is many things.

Feel free to show evidence or even a scientific theory supporting this.

Feel free to explain what was there before the mythical big bang if not nothing.

Uh no. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about but it doesn't correspond to any observation or theory I have heard of.[/QUOTE}

Naturally since I do not waste my time quoting accepted dogma on a science MB. Rather pointless. I might hope that you would give what I say some thought even though it is not accepted dogma.

[QUOTE]If by material you mean atoms then no. If you mean some kind of physical information then absolutely 100% correct.

Then you have to explain how we can have endlessly more of it since it is blatant nonsense to think that space can stretch endlessly.

Assuming it was a point source, it would have had alot of energy... enough for universe to continue expanding as it is today.

Point sources as in singularities do not expand (if they exist which is not likely). They would be ultimately stable, unless someone repeals the laws of gravity.


It's coming from energy that's already part of our universe... unless there is an outside energy source feeding it somehow.

I refer you to your first answer since there is no evidence of this.

Technically it's expanding. That is more points of space are being added to the whole (presumably converted from existing energy).

This would suggest that from the first moment, the universe was running down. Considering how big the universe allegedly is, where is so much energy coming from?

Because it is expanding. An purely unbounded structure would not expand or contract (but it could have a finite segment within it that could... which would be bounded consequently).

The alleged expansion is from one interpretation of redshift. We know that everything in the universe is moving, but have no hard evidence that it is moving away from each other since it takes cosmic time to see such an effect.

That it exists is self evident. What it is remains a mystery.

To listen to people talk of curved space, you would think that a star's mass conducts it's attractive effect via space and that we interpret this as a mythical gravity force.

Look spacetime is made of a soup of virtual particles. Its has dimensions 3 and 1 temporal, so these dimensions are considered physical by physicists. That answers the question.

Space is not empty, or just space. It is many things.

If space is something, then you need to explain how there can be endlessly more of it. If it is full of virtual particles, then to keep these constant, it means space cannot expand since there would be less of them as it expanded. How does space go from a point source to 158,000,000,000 light years across? That's a zillion-fold increase.

Feel free to explain what was there before the mythical big bang if not nothing.

Turning a question back on me doesn't absolve you from providing evidence for your claim. That onus is still on you; however, I will answer your question regardless. Unification theories describe "outside" the universe as the bulk, calibi yao space, fileds, etc. Simply put, our universe is a blip of change in a never-ending system of change.

Naturally since I do not waste my time quoting accepted dogma on a science MB. Rather pointless. I might hope that you would give what I say some thought even though it is not accepted dogma.

You are going to have to explain yourself better.


Then you have to explain how we can have endlessly more of it since it is blatant nonsense to think that space can stretch endlessly.

It would be energy already built in. Consequently, space isn't stretching... it is expanding. There is a world of difference between the two.



Point sources as in singularities do not expand (if they exist which is not likely). They would be ultimately stable, unless someone repeals the laws of gravity.

We don't know enough to make any such of assertions. All we can do is observe, model, make predictions, test, and revise the models.


I refer you to your first answer since there is no evidence of this.

Are you joking? All particles have virtual counterparts that are teeming all around everywhere. Non-virtual particles even make use of virtual ones for communication (ex. electrons repelling each other with virtual photons).

The fields that particles spring from therefore have IMMENSE amounts of energy.



This would suggest that from the first moment, the universe was running down. Considering how big the universe allegedly is, where is so much energy coming from?

It could suggest that the universe will expand until no more energy is left to fuel the expansion (i.e. our unvierse reaches maximum entropy). It could also mean that there is enough energy to continue accelerating expansion... which could could lead to points of space being added so quick that not even the strong nuclear force could hold atomic nucleii together. Keep in mind the universe's expansion was decelrating towards half the age of the universe and then it just picked up and started accelerating. For all we know expansion could decelerate at some point.



The alleged expansion is from one interpretation of redshift. We know that everything in the universe is moving, but have no hard evidence that it is moving away from each other since it takes cosmic time to see such an effect.

We can detect that galaxies are moving apart faster than their mass could otherwise travel. The only known way for that to happen is for more space to be added.


To listen to people talk of curved space, you would think that a star's mass conducts it's attractive effect via space and that we interpret this as a mythical gravity force.

Where there mass density, there is curved spacetime, and there is gravity. Particle physics predicts that carrier is a graviton. M-theory predicts it being self contained force in looped strings. Nobody knows what it is.

If space is something, then you need to explain how there can be endlessly more of it. If it is full of virtual particles, then to keep these constant, it means space cannot expand since there would be less of them as it expanded. How does space go from a point source to 158,000,000,000 light years across? That's a zillion-fold increase.

Most negative resavior (such as the Dirac Sea of virtual particles) - have an infinite amount of particles; take some of the energy away, and the hole is replaced by more energy. And space and time expand, more enrgy is released into the vacuum, and this matter and energy is what keeps space and time together.

This is pure physics i speak here.

Btw, who said we don't have gravity? Chances are we do, but it is so small compared to the planet that it becomes imperceptible....

I don't think anybody said this. Anyway, there is more than just a chance that we, as matter, have a gravitational field

Space is made out of dimensions.If you take a volume of Space and empty it of hydrogen and helium nuclei, perhaps a few atoms or even complete molecules of matter and lots of photons - energetic particles fleeting through, when it’s empty, that volume of Space even if it’s shielded to stop even an 'electron' from getting in to pollute this area of purely empty Space it wouldn't be long surely before it contains nuclei appearing from nowhere?

If you take a volume of Space and empty it of hydrogen and helium nuclei, perhaps a few atoms or even complete molecules of matter and lots of photons - energetic particles fleeting through, when it’s empty, that volume of Space even if it’s shielded to stop even an 'electron' from getting in to pollute this area of purely empty Space it wouldn't be long surely before it contains nuclei appearing from nowhere?Hi zagacious, welcome to the "what is space" thread. This topic seems to be able to spark new discussions from time to time. Your comments might just be one of those times.

Given the conditions that you describe, though there may be no possibility that those conditions could actually exist, we have a starting point to explore the idea of two concepts; empty space, and energy from nowhere.

Empty space is the easiest to conceptualize and you have done a good job of presenting the idea of empty space.

Something from nothing is a little harder for me to get a grasp of. Sometimes I hear about spontaneous symmetry breaking which in some theory says that nothing can be split into matter and anti-matter to create energy. When to two come together they annihilate each other and we have nothing again. Presumably, the spontaneous symmetry breaking could be a continuous process, and the annihilation may be delayed by the simple fact that it takes time for the particles and anti-particles to find each other, and during that duration, both matter and anti-matter exist. Parameters of how frequent the symmetry breaking occurs in any give space, the volume of space required for it to occur, and the duration of the particles formed can be defined that would allow matter to form that defies or at least delays the annihilation process. Seemly there is a scenario that would result in an expanding universe like we observe.

Personally I prefer the idea that you can't get energy from nothing. That leads to another concept that has some degree of acceptance. It says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and on that premise, the energy of the universe has always existed.

Space is made up of everything. Techinically speaking, anything that inhabits space can be considered part of space, like if you see an asteroid, that asteroid inhabits space, so do planets, and everything else. So technically speaking, space is made up of everything.

Space is made up of everything. Techinically speaking, anything that inhabits space can be considered part of space, like if you see an asteroid, that asteroid inhabits space, so do planets, and everything else. So technically speaking, space is made up of everything.

They are referring to the spatial dimensions, not the cosmos in general.

space
–noun
1. the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/space

Hi zagacious, welcome to the "what is space" thread. This topic seems to be able to spark new discussions from time to time. Your comments might just be one of those times.

Given the conditions that you describe, though there may be no possibility that those conditions could actually exist, we have a starting point to explore the idea of two concepts; empty space, and energy from nowhere.

Empty space is the easiest to conceptualize and you have done a good job of presenting the idea of empty space.

Something from nothing is a little harder for me to get a grasp of. Sometimes I hear about spontaneous symmetry breaking which in some theory says that nothing can be split into matter and anti-matter to create energy. When to two come together they annihilate each other and we have nothing again. Presumably, the spontaneous symmetry breaking could be a continuous process, and the annihilation may be delayed by the simple fact that it takes time for the particles and anti-particles to find each other, and during that duration, both matter and anti-matter exist. Parameters of how frequent the symmetry breaking occurs in any give space, the volume of space required for it to occur, and the duration of the particles formed can be defined that would allow matter to form that defies or at least delays the annihilation process. Seemly there is a scenario that would result in an expanding universe like we observe.

Personally I prefer the idea that you can't get energy from nothing. That leads to another concept that has some degree of acceptance. It says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and on that premise, the energy of the universe has always existed.Hi to you too quantum wave

Yes I suppose by removing matter and radiation to be left with a vacuum is one way to explain what space is made of. But also you suggest you can’t get energy from nothing, well could you for instance take a region of space that contains nothing, then with negative energy and mass maybe bend space/time, this negative energy could then be used to make perpetual motion machines?

I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?

quantum harmonic oscillators?

Hi to you too quantum wave

Yes I suppose by removing matter and radiation to be left with a vacuum is one way to explain what space is made of. But also you suggest you can’t get energy from nothing, well could you for instance take a region of space that contains nothing, then with negative energy and mass maybe bend space/time, this negative energy could then be used to make perpetual motion machines?Vacuum energy density is supposed to be a driver of the cosmological constant.

Vacuum energy density: (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/glossary.html#VED) Quantum theory requires empty space to be filled with particles and anti-particles being continually created and annihilated. This could lead to a net density of the vacuum, which if present, would behave like a cosmological constant (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/glossary.html#CC).
Cosmological constant: a term in Einstein's general relativity equations that leads to an acceleration of the expansion of the Universe.

So yes, it could be said that the Theory of General Relativity and Big Bang Theory embrace the idea that negative energy (vacuum) and mass combine to bend space/time (curve spacetime) to explain the motion of objects in space perpetually, at least until the Big Rip (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html) :).

But if energy has always existed and all space has some degree of energy density, then the Big Rip cannot occur. We'll have to wait to see how it all unfolds.

Vacuum energy density is supposed to be a driver of the cosmological constant.

Vacuum energy density: (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/glossary.html#VED) Quantum theory requires empty space to be filled with particles and anti-particles being continually created and annihilated. This could lead to a net density of the vacuum, which if present, would behave like a cosmological constant (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/glossary.html#CC).
Cosmological constant: a term in Einstein's general relativity equations that leads to an acceleration of the expansion of the Universe.

So yes, it could be said that the Theory of General Relativity and Big Bang Theory embrace the idea that negative energy (vacuum) and mass combine to bend space/time (curve spacetime) to explain the motion of objects in space perpetually, at least until the Big Rip (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html) :).

But if energy has always existed and all space has some degree of energy density, then the Big Rip cannot occur. We'll have to wait to see how it all unfolds.thank you, how many years before the big rip lol don't think we need to worry. What I was trying to explain is a mad notion of negetive energy being beamed off to some distant corner of the universe while employing the positive energy to perform it's tasks here on Earth, an inexhaustibe energy supply, whether it'd violate the second law of thermodynamics?

thank you, how many years before the big rip lol don't think we need to worry. What I was trying to explain is a mad notion of negetive energy being beamed off to some distant corner of the universe while employing the positive energy to perform it's tasks here on Earth, an inexhaustibe energy supply, whether it'd violate the second law of thermodynamics?:) You're right, no need to worry about the Big Rip. Actually the Big Rip, just like General Relativity, requires vacuum energy density to drive the expansion of the universe. I don't think there really is any vacuum energy density driving things though, so we might both be comfortable in not worrying about the Big Rip, but we may be comfortable for two different reasons. At the very least it is a long time off, and at the very best it won't happen ever. Nothing to worry about today either way.

Let's think about that mad notion of negative energy being beamed off to some distant corner of the universe. There are mainstream theories that say that is exactly what some scientists think happened. Some say that at the "beginning" of the universe that the Big Bang was where space originated, but some offer the idea that the big bang occurred within a vast vacuum. It is the vacuum that is driving the expansion, sort of sucking energy into the void so to speak.

Some say there was an event (the Big Bang) that broke the symmetry of the vacuum. The idea is akin to the idea of particles popping into and out of existence as particles and anti particles. Some say that the particles went one way and the anti particles went the other, both sucked into the void in different directions by the vacuum.

On the surface that line of thinking seems to have merit, but I always get dragged back to the question of first cause. Where did the energy come from to break the symmetry of the vacuum all of a sudden? If it occurred gradually throughout the vacuum then the particles would regularly annihilate each other. In order for the separation of the particles and anti-particles to occur, there had to be a Big Bang all at once. What caused the Big Bang is the question that I come back to.

I go with the idea that energy has always existed meaning that the universe has always existed. Our Big Bang is just part of a greater universe where Big Bangs are commonplace. Our Bang is expanding while others, further along in their expansion have overlapped. Overlapping interrupts the expansion allowing gravity to get a grip on the galactic material in the overlapping region of the intersecting arenas.

Gravity causes the galactic material to collapse into Big Crunches and the energy density inside a Big Crunch causes the Crunch to burst into an new expanding arena. No Big Rip to worry about, only those pesky overlapping arenas :).

:) You're right, no need to worry about the Big Rip. Actually the Big Rip, just like General Relativity, requires vacuum energy density to drive the expansion of the universe. I don't think there really is any vacuum energy density driving things though, so we might both be comfortable in not worrying about the Big Rip, but we may be comfortable for two different reasons. At the very least it is a long time off, and at the very best it won't happen ever. Nothing to worry about today either way.

Let's think about that mad notion of negative energy being beamed off to some distant corner of the universe. There are mainstream theories that say that is exactly what some scientists think happened. Some say that at the "beginning" of the universe that the Big Bang was where space originated, but some offer the idea that the big bang occurred within a vast vacuum. It is the vacuum that is driving the expansion, sort of sucking energy into the void so to speak.

Some say there was an event (the Big Bang) that broke the symmetry of the vacuum. The idea is akin to the idea of particles popping into and out of existence as particles and anti particles. Some say that the particles went one way and the anti particles went the other, both sucked into the void in different directions by the vacuum.

On the surface that line of thinking seems to have merit, but I always get dragged back to the question of first cause. Where did the energy come from to break the symmetry of the vacuum all of a sudden? If it occurred gradually throughout the vacuum then the particles would regularly annihilate each other. In order for the separation of the particles and anti-particles to occur, there had to be a Big Bang all at once. What caused the Big Bang is the question that I come back to.

I go with the idea that energy has always existed meaning that the universe has always existed. Our Big Bang is just part of a greater universe where Big Bangs are commonplace. Our Bang is expanding while others, further along in their expansion have overlapped. Overlapping interrupts the expansion allowing gravity to get a grip on the galactic material in the overlapping region of the intersecting arenas.

Gravity causes the galactic material to collapse into Big Crunches and the energy density inside a Big Crunch causes the Crunch to burst into an new expanding arena. No Big Rip to worry about, only those pesky overlapping arenas :).what about the idea of multiverse theory? maybe the big bang came from another universe? what puzzles me is in the early stages of the universe it was at one stage slowing down and some sort of anti gravity made it speed up in it's expansion like we see today. what was this anit gravity?

what about the idea of multiverse theory? maybe the big bang came from another universe? what puzzles me is in the early stages of the universe it was at one stage slowing down and some sort of anti gravity made it speed up in it's expansion like we see today. what was this anit gravity?

Even if that is true, it doesn't solve anything.

what about the idea of multiverse theory? maybe the big bang came from another universe? what puzzles me is in the early stages of the universe it was at one stage slowing down and some sort of anti gravity made it speed up in it's expansion like we see today. what was this anti gravity?You are talking about the recently discovered acceleration of expansion when you mention the speeding up caused by "some sort of anti-gravity".

I think of the acceleration in terms of the inverse square rule combined with the expansion momentum. The gravitational attraction between galaxies declines as the distance between them increases. And the distance between them increases as a result of expansion momentum imparted to matter as it formed soon after the Big Bang (burst :)). So expansion is now accelerating as the gravitation force declines relative to the expansion momentum.

As for a period of slowing expansion, I have an idea about that too (of course :o). Before matter formed from the energy density that expanded rapidly after the big bang (burst) the expansion was unimpaired by gravity. When matter formed, gravity began. I like to say that mass *has* gravity.

As mass formed and gravity began, there was a "bungee" type of reaction where the expanding energy was converted to matter. As matter formed, the expansion energy was imparted to the matter, but now the additional factor of gravity came into the mix. The rate of expansion slowed when matter formed but still, the expansion energy on a grand scale was not defeated by gravity.

Only the local patches within the expansion had enough gravity to cause matter to clump. That clumping lead to galactic formation, but the galaxies were still moving apart because expansion on the galactic scale still exceeded gravity.

As for multi universes, my scenario looks at multiverses as separate arenas, all connected by being part of a greater universe with an infinite history of big crunches and big bursts. Each big crunch/burst becomes and expanding arena (like we call the visible universe in our limited view).

You are talking about the recently discovered acceleration of expansion when you mention the speeding up caused by "some sort of anti-gravity".

I think of the acceleration in terms of the inverse square rule combined with the expansion momentum. The gravitational attraction between galaxies declines as the distance between them increases. And the distance between them increases as a result of expansion momentum imparted to matter as it formed soon after the Big Bang (burst :)). So expansion is now accelerating as the gravitation force declines relative to the expansion momentum.

As for a period of slowing expansion, I have an idea about that too (of course :o). Before matter formed from the energy density that expanded rapidly after the big bang (burst) the expansion was unimpaired by gravity. When matter formed, gravity began. I like to say that mass *has* gravity.

As mass formed and gravity began, there was a "bungee" type of reaction where the expanding energy was converted to matter. As matter formed, the expansion energy was imparted to the matter, but now the additional factor of gravity came into the mix. The rate of expansion slowed when matter formed but still, the expansion energy on a grand scale was not defeated by gravity.

Only the local patches within the expansion had enough gravity to cause matter to clump. That clumping lead to galactic formation, but the galaxies were still moving apart because expansion on the galactic scale still exceeded gravity.

As for multi universes, my scenario looks at multiverses as separate arenas, all connected by being part of a greater universe with an infinite history of big crunches and big bursts. Each big crunch/burst becomes and expanding arena (like we call the visible universe in our limited view).Mathematically the chances of our universe acting in the way it does is several trillion to one, so wouldn’t a numbers game make more sense, in that out of a infinite array of different universes all acting in different ways it’s inevitable at some point a universe like ours will be created with us having this conversation. I agree that mass ‘has’ gravity, the illusion on Earth that mass and volume are two different dimensions. Gravity is not a mysterious attractive force between masses, but a simple pressure force exerted by space-time on (closed) volumes.

Mathematically the chances of our universe acting in the way it does is several trillion to one, so wouldn’t a numbers game make more sense, in that out of a infinite array of different universes all acting in different ways it’s inevitable at some point a universe like ours will be created with us having this conversation.Very likely, in fact certainly true. Here we are so we know the probability is 100% :poke:.

Let me describe my scenario of the landscape of the greater universe and the history of arenas. Space is endless and always has been. All space is filled with energy. Arena action is an endless process of big crunches, big bursts, arena expansion, arena overlap, big crunch formation, and more big bursts. Each arena occupies a volume of space, and space being infinite, there are an infinite number of arenas at the same time.

Now an arena also has a finite life (meaning they begin from a big crunch and end as expansion plays out after arenas intersect). New arenas take the place of old arenas but not the exact location. New arenas form in the shared space of their overlapping intersections.

So the landscape is an every changing arena environment across infinite space, and the history is of arenas that have come and gone here and there across the infinite universe and over an infinite time frame.
I agree that mass ‘has’ gravity, the illusion on Earth that mass and volume are two different dimensions. Gravity is not a mysterious attractive force between masses, but a simple pressure force exerted by space-time on (closed) volumes.In not a space-time advocate because I think gravity has a cause at the quantum level and is not caused by the curvature of spacetime. But your phrase "a simple pressure force" is very close to the idea I call quantum action. I see energy as being quantized, and matter formed from energy in quantum increments. Gravity is associated with the force of quantum action and the pressure exerted by quantum action.

In my view, the multiple arena landscape of the greater universe and the multiple energy quanta at the quantum level are quite similar. We are going to get too far off topic for me to tell you about my view of gravity and mass but I have posted them elsewhere :).

Very likely, in fact certainly true. Here we are so we know the probability is 100% :poke:.

Let me describe my scenario of the landscape of the greater universe and the history of arenas. Space is endless and always has been. All space is filled with energy. Arena action is an endless process of big crunches, big bursts, arena expansion, arena overlap, big crunch formation, and more big bursts. Each arena occupies a volume of space, and space being infinite, there are an infinite number of arenas at the same time.

Now an arena also has a finite life (meaning they begin from a big crunch and end as expansion plays out after arenas intersect). New arenas take the place of old arenas but not the exact location. New arenas form in the shared space of their overlapping intersections.

So the landscape is an every changing arena environment across infinite space, and the history is of arenas that have come and gone here and there across the infinite universe and over an infinite time frame.
In not a space-time advocate because I think gravity has a cause at the quantum level and is not caused by the curvature of spacetime. But your phrase "a simple pressure force" is very close to the idea I call quantum action. I see energy as being quantized, and matter formed from energy in quantum increments. Gravity is associated with the force of quantum action and the pressure exerted by quantum action.

In my view, the multiple arena landscape of the greater universe and the multiple energy quanta at the quantum level are quite similar. We are going to get too far off topic for me to tell you about my view of gravity and mass but I have posted them elsewhere :).yes we could chat about this indefinitely, I'll look for your posts on gravity and mass.

If space was not made up of anything at all then it will be imposible to keep size of one object relative to other.

interesting

so are you saying that space has a substance associated to it ?

if space does what is that substance ?

Hi thinking. Welcome aboard.

I don't think RawThinkTank is around anymore. But you could jump into the thread by saying how you would answer the original question, "What is space made of?"

space is not so much " made " of something as it , space is a consequence of energy/matter existence

for me both energy/matter and space happen simultaneously

since neither energy/matter and space can exist without the other

Nothing wrong with that thinking, thinking. But to play the devils advocate, could space exist without energy or matter being in it (in spite of the fact that there wouldn't be anyone to wave their hand through it to see if it was there :))?

If space was not made up of anything at all then it will be imposible to keep size of one object relative to other.

Humans do U understand what the above line states ?

Nothing wrong with that thinking, thinking. But to play the devils advocate, could space exist without energy or matter being in it (in spite of the fact that there wouldn't be anyone to wave their hand through it to see if it was there :))?

no

because space has no substance in and of its self

you can't grasp a hold of space

you can't cut out a block of space from space

therefore space must be a consequence of

OK...
but it sounds like you might be saying that you couldn't wave your hand through space to see if it was there :).

But forget that. Are you saying that space cannot be empty because in order for space to be of any consequence it must contain something?

OK...
but it sounds like you might be saying that you couldn't wave your hand through space to see if it was there :).

But forget that.

done

Are you saying that space cannot be empty because in order for space to be of any consequence it must contain something?

no

what I'm saying is that in order for space to exist in the first place there must be energy/matter present

now there might be packets in space where no energy/matter exists

but that is the end result of energy/matter dynamics of object(s)

OK, I can buy that; space, energy and matter are all connected. And to be practical, you can't have less than all of those three together and still have a universe.

Welcome and have fun at SciForums.

QW

OK, I can buy that space, energy and matter are all connected; and to be practical you can't have less that all of those three together and still have a universe.

yes

Welcome and have fun at SciForums.

QW

thanks

it seems I will

thinking

OK, I can buy that space, energy and matter are all connected; and to be practical you can't have less that all of those three together and still have a universe.

here is a thread (on a different forum) on exactly that:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37206

I went there and read that thread. Though though provoking, it seems that you point it out to us because you are serious about a universe without space. That means that what ID=thinking and I seemed to agree on was contrary to your premise.

The statement that "you need all three (space, energy and matter) to have a universe" was just being practical. We could go further and be logically correct, but not practical. Going there, it could be said that there is an order (sequence) to how those three characteristic come together to make a practical universe.

The seemly logical order to me would be that you first have space, but no energy and no matter. This logical but impractical universe would be meaningless in my view because it takes energy and matter to produce an entity that could find any meaning in any universe. So we can scratch a "space only" universe from the list of minimum practical universes.

If we take that impractical "space only" universe and add energy and matter, we then have the framework for a practice universe like the one we observe. To contemplate removing "space" from that practical universe is what you are suggesting isn't it? The result leaves a universe with energy and matter and no place to go ;). A pretty dull place; and not a practical universe IMHO.

I would like to know what space is made of? Anyone think they know the answere?


This is simple. Space is constructed of moving packets of energy. They're momentum dictates time. They're vibration dictates composition.

I think the Boze-Einstien Condensate illistrates how this packet of energy may behave on the quantum level at the very least amount of energy to remain existing. If heat and and thus movement are completely removed space and particles would cease to exist.

Saquist

Beautifully said. Indeed, spacetime is made of moving ''knots'' - these knots are created from the distortions and geometry of spacetime, and possess an infinite amount of momentum in a very defined position within spacetime, whilst having an infinite amount of positions when they have a very unique momentum.

Remove this momentum (or better said, the intrinsic property of movement) and then you have no particles, and this would remove space and time as well, according to relativity.

This is simple. Space is constructed of moving packets of energy. They're momentum dictates time. They're vibration dictates composition. Granted, it is simple to say. It is not so simple to prove. You are talking about ideas, and some of the ideas are part of accepted theory.
I think the Boze-Einstien Condensate illistrates how this packet of energy may behave on the quantum level at the very least amount of energy to remain existing. If heat and and thus movement are completely removed space and particles would cease to exist.When you talk about space ceasing to exist you are speaking from the Big Bang Theory and more specifically, the Theory of General Relativity. There is a problem though with saying that space would cease to exist. The problem is that neither BBT or GR actually say that. It is implied and that implication is carried forward beyond the theories and into the realm of speculation.

On the other hand, it is just as legitimate to speculate that space is infinite and has always existed.

Granted, it is simple to say. It is not so simple to prove. You are talking about ideas, and some of the ideas are part of accepted theory.
When you talk about space ceasing to exist you are speaking from the Big Bang Theory and more specifically, the Theory of General Relativity. There is a problem though with saying that space would cease to exist. The problem is that neither BBT or GR actually say that. It is implied and that implication is carried forward beyond the theories and into the realm of speculation.

On the other hand, it is just as legitimate to speculate that space is infinite and has always existed.

Actually friend, general relativity does say this. This theory makes space-time-mattee-energy interdependant. The following is by physicist Andre Linde

''The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves.''

Turning a question back on me doesn't absolve you from providing evidence for your claim. That onus is still on you; however, I will answer your question regardless. Unification theories describe "outside" the universe as the bulk, calibi yao space, fileds, etc. Simply put, our universe is a blip of change in a never-ending system of change.


These are just ideas. There is no evidence for them. Show me what space is if not nothing?


You are going to have to explain yourself better.

Mythology has space at quantum size. It is now somewhere over 158 billion light years in diameter and expected to expand for maybe 100 billion years more. This is a crackpot idea if you believe space is anything more than nothing.

It would be energy already built in. Consequently, space isn't stretching... it is expanding. There is a world of difference between the two.

If something expands then there is a loss from it. Elastic gets thinner. Atmosphere gets less dense. Space expands a zillion, zillion times and remains the same. I don't think so. Built in energy would quickly be diluted endlessly like homeopathic medicine. Soon none would be detectable.


We don't know enough to make any such of assertions. All we can do is observe, model, make predictions, test, and revise the models.

There is no revising the model. It is just endless fudges added to the big bang idea to try and stop it literally falling apart. Singularities are nonsense and only exist on paper.

Are you joking? All particles have virtual counterparts that are teeming all around everywhere. Non-virtual particles even make use of virtual ones for communication (ex. electrons repelling each other with virtual photons).

The fields that particles spring from therefore have IMMENSE amounts of energy.

Virtual particles are made under lab conditions. There is zero evidence that they exist in space. It is an idea.

It could suggest that the universe will expand until no more energy is left to fuel the expansion (i.e. our unvierse reaches maximum entropy). It could also mean that there is enough energy to continue accelerating expansion... which could could lead to points of space being added so quick that not even the strong nuclear force could hold atomic nucleii together. Keep in mind the universe's expansion was decelrating towards half the age of the universe and then it just picked up and started accelerating. For all we know expansion could decelerate at some point.


But there is this DE BS magically being produced from dimension Z. we effectively live in a snapshot of the universe. If it is expanding, it is on such a time scale that we will never know it so there can be no ultimate proof that the redshift we see is down to expansion. It is a belief, based on one view of the evidence.


We can detect that galaxies are moving apart faster than their mass could otherwise travel. The only known way for that to happen is for more space to be added.

This is down to redshifts. If the idea is wrong, then the whole lot falls down since it is a house of dominoes. If the redshift we see is down to gravity, as in the whole universe is a sea of gravity, so any photon travelling through it a sufficient distance will be redshifted (indistinguishable from recessional redshift), then this doppler shift is just a measure of distance and not of speed moving away from us.


Where there mass density, there is curved spacetime, and there is gravity. Particle physics predicts that carrier is a graviton. M-theory predicts it being self contained force in looped strings. Nobody knows what it is.

The term "curved space" makes it sound like space is a conductor for mass and that it's effect is carried from a star to a nearby planet as though buckling a sheet of rubber. No gravity needed.

Whatever gravity is, it is not a particle. Particles do not travel at light speed. I don't think it's a wave either as in EMR since it can escape black holes (ie: gravity cannot stop gravity).

here is a thread (on a different forum) on exactly that:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37206

The main idea there seemed to be particles behaving like amoebas. For them to divide into two equal particles, that will take energy. The bigger the universe grows, the less it's energy will grow. Start off from quantum size and before you reach virus size, the particles have run out of energy.

Most negative resavior (such as the Dirac Sea of virtual particles) - have an infinite amount of particles; take some of the energy away, and the hole is replaced by more energy. And space and time expand, more enrgy is released into the vacuum, and this matter and energy is what keeps space and time together.

This is pure physics i speak here.


The fact that we can create them under very set conditions on Earth does not mean that virtual particles exist in space. I dislike the term "infinite". I get the impression that right behind it comes some BS because there are no infinites. It is a mathematical idea.

Time is a measure of change. There is no actual time, as in Dr Who. Spacetime is a term used by mathematicians that somehow got carried over into the real world.

OK...
but it sounds like you might be saying that you couldn't wave your hand through space to see if it was there :).

But forget that. Are you saying that space cannot be empty because in order for space to be of any consequence it must contain something?

If you imagine "here" before the universe somehow happened, then there is literally nothing. It does not even occupy the space of a single electron. Then we have the universe at who knows how many billion light years across. In between all matter, photons, gravity, etc is still literally nothing but what is there now gives what was nothing "size".

The fact that we can create them under very set conditions on Earth does not mean that virtual particles exist in space. I dislike the term "infinite". I get the impression that right behind it comes some BS because there are no infinites. It is a mathematical idea.

Time is a measure of change. There is no actual time, as in Dr Who. Spacetime is a term used by mathematicians that somehow got carried over into the real world.

Well, theoretically-speaking, virtual particles have real effects in the world, even if we cannot see them. Relatively-speaking, from their point of view, they may have no real interactions until they 'pop' out of a false vacuum, but it would be going to far to say the exist not at all in space. More likely, a virtual spacetime is needed.

Actually friend, general relativity does say this. This theory makes space-time-matter-energy interdependant. The following is by physicist Andre Linde

''The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves.''If I may, quoting Linde is not the same as proving that the concept of spacetime is right.

Where he says, "Space and time were found ... " or "Space-time was also found ... ", the use of the word "found" seems to imply it has been proven. It hasn't been found or proven. What has been found is that the predictions of the theory have been found to be quite reliable, but the evidence also supports other models of the universe just as reliably. Once such model is that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch that occupied space and contained energy that pre-existed the instant called t = 0 in GR and BBT.

Space is what's left when you subtract all the signals.

These are just ideas. There is no evidence for them. Show me what space is if not nothing?

They are ideas rooted in known physics (i.e. spawned from a well established base). Of course unification theories tend to be very theoretical and therefore difficult to test; however, the LHC is going to change some of that by testing predictions made by some of the theories... and what comes from that is evidence.

We also went through this "space is nothing" cycle already. Length, width, height, and time (which are all part of space) are NOT nothing. If you cannot or will not grasp this then there is nothing more I can do... it's your problem.


Mythology has space at quantum size. It is now somewhere over 158 billion light years in diameter and expected to expand for maybe 100 billion years more. This is a crackpot idea if you believe space is anything more than nothing.

That conclusion is crackpot in itself. It's not rooted in evidence but I suspect it's rooted in some kind of psychological phenomenon.


If something expands then there is a loss from it. Elastic gets thinner. Atmosphere gets less dense. Space expands a zillion, zillion times and remains the same. I don't think so. Built in energy would quickly be diluted endlessly like homeopathic medicine. Soon none would be detectable.

Ok, you're still not understanding the difference between expansion and stretching. I'll use an anology using a square sheet of elastic.

To stretch the elastic, pull on two opposing ends. To expand the elastic sew on a secondary piece of elastic.

See the difference? The latter is what's happening to space. More of it is being added to the whole. It's expanding.


There is no revising the model. It is just endless fudges added to the big bang idea to try and stop it literally falling apart. Singularities are nonsense and only exist on paper.

No revising the model? Apparently you arent aware of all the inflationary / string / loop / etc. models that have superceded the original "big bang" theory. I can't do the research for you or go to school for you... again it's your problem.

Singularities (as far as relativity is concerned) result in a point of infinite density on paper. While that's very likely not possible in reality, it's more likely a limitation of the theory. Relativity predicts the anatomy of a black hole as having an event horizon and a singularity. We can currently detect black holes in the cosmos; however, they hide their internals. It would seem reasonable that something like a singularity is on the inside... finite in density but still an accretion of maximally compressed matter nonetheless.


Virtual particles are made under lab conditions. There is zero evidence that they exist in space. It is an idea.

You're joking right? We can detect the net pressure of virtual particles in space.


But there is this DE BS magically being produced from dimension Z. we effectively live in a snapshot of the universe. If it is expanding, it is on such a time scale that we will never know it so there can be no ultimate proof that the redshift we see is down to expansion. It is a belief, based on one view of the evidence.

This is down to redshifts. If the idea is wrong, then the whole lot falls down since it is a house of dominoes. If the redshift we see is down to gravity, as in the whole universe is a sea of gravity, so any photon travelling through it a sufficient distance will be redshifted (indistinguishable from recessional redshift), then this doppler shift is just a measure of distance and not of speed moving away from us.


It's not just redshift. Matter requires infinite energy to move at the speed of light... which cannot occur in reality. Yet, we can observe galaxies moving away from each other up to 2 times the speed of light. The ONLY way that can happen is if space is being added between them. Redshift and other wave stretching phenomena are simply additional points of validation.


The term "curved space" makes it sound like space is a conductor for mass and that it's effect is carried from a star to a nearby planet as though buckling a sheet of rubber. No gravity needed.

That's a possible interpretation of curved space.


Whatever gravity is, it is not a particle. Particles do not travel at light speed. I don't think it's a wave either as in EMR since it can escape black holes (ie: gravity cannot stop gravity).

It's obviously not a particle because it's a force; however, the carrier of the force may be a virtual particle (presently dubbed a graviton). Much like the carrier of EM force is a virtual photon.

We also went through this "space is nothing" cycle already. Length, width, height, and time (which are all part of space) are NOT nothing. If you cannot or will not grasp this then there is nothing I more can do... it's your problem.

actually I would replace time with movement , since it would be more accurate

since the essence of time is based on the movement of object(s) and interactions

no getting around that , no matter the angle of criticism

Granted, it is simple to say. It is not so simple to prove. You are talking about ideas, and some of the ideas are part of accepted theory.
When you talk about space ceasing to exist you are speaking from the Big Bang Theory and more specifically, the Theory of General Relativity. There is a problem though with saying that space would cease to exist. The problem is that neither BBT or GR actually say that. It is implied and that implication is carried forward beyond the theories and into the realm of speculation.

On the other hand, it is just as legitimate to speculate that space is infinite and has always existed.

There are several co-joined properties in the universe.

Matter / Energy
Time / Space
Gravity / Inertia


These are realities not theories. When a object or particle is given energy it must move. In order for time to elapse a distance must be traveled. For mass to exert gravitational force it must resist the change in the universe's state of motion, accerlation.

Existence is litteraly defined as energy (in any form) in motion. If a particle ceases to move it will not exist. Everything in the universe is in motion. The theory of General Relativity couldn't have gotten it more right. Even down to the quantum level the theory of strings works because it suggest a relative vibrational momentum to directional momentum. This is how I suppose why String Theory supposes 7 additional dimensions because of the ineraction of relative motions on beyond the quantum level.


Saquist

Beautifully said. Indeed, spacetime is made of moving ''knots'' - these knots are created from the distortions and geometry of spacetime, and possess an infinite amount of momentum in a very defined position within spacetime, whilst having an infinite amount of positions when they have a very unique momentum.

Remove this momentum (or better said, the intrinsic property of movement) and then you have no particles, and this would remove space and time as well, according to relativity.

I think you said it better.

actually I would replace time with movement , since it would be more accurate

since the essence of time is based on the movement of object(s) and interactions

no getting around that , no matter the angle of criticism

Time would be a separation of moments (or movements).

Your impressions of the current state of our knowledge has lead you to some conclusions that overstep the bounds of theory. To discuss the topics of matter/energy, time/space, and gravity/inertial from the perspective that there are relationships between them is scientific. To say that these relationships are understood by science to the degree that we can move them from theory to reality is the overstep.There are several co-joined properties in the universe.

Matter / Energy
Time / Space
Gravity / Inertia


These are realities not theories.In regard to matter/energy, there is clearly an equivalence. And co-joined is a good way to express that equivalence. We agree that far. But we don't know what causes mass. We have theories but there is insufficient evidence to call them reality. When a object or particle is given energy it must move.I would agree with that at the particle level and would say that when a particle exists, it is composed of energy and the nature of the energy contained in particles gives the particle duality, i.e. wave/particle characteristics at the particle level. If you combine particles into objects, then the object is internally expressing the frequency of the particles but the object itself, the classical object, can be at rest. The motion of an object is relative to other objects.In order for time to elapse a distance must be traveled.This is true for the wave/particle nature of particles and if you mean that there must be movement at the particle level then it is true. But an object can be at rest relative to other objects and time will still pass.For mass to exert gravitational force it must resist the change in the universe's state of motion, accerlation.This is an overstep from theory to what you have concluded to be reality. We not only don't know what causes mass, we don't know what causes gravity. We quite clearly know the effect of gravity and General Relativity has it described to a great degree of accuracy. But it is still theory and not fact. The coupling of space and time assumes a start point from zero volume at t = 0, or at least that is the common conception of what is implied by GR. Your reference to the universe's state of motion refers to the expansion, assumes zero volume at t = 0, and not only gives no explanation for pre-conditions, it is implied that there we no pre-conditions, i.e. it implies that the energy came from nowhere. Cleary that is just theory and there are alternative theories that accomodate pre-conditions.Existence is litteraly defined as energy (in any form) in motion. If a particle ceases to move it will not exist. Everything in the universe is in motion. The theory of General Relativity couldn't have gotten it more right. Even down to the quantum level the theory of strings works because it suggest a relative vibrational momentum to directional momentum. This is how I suppose why String Theory supposes 7 additional dimensions because of the ineraction of relative motions on beyond the quantum level.The entire paragraph gets mixed reviews from the standpoint of theory vs. reality. There is no argument with the energy and motion part. But when you give GR the status of fact and not theory, and then ignore the incompatibility between General Relativity and the quantum realm buy advancing string theory as the answer, you are overstepping the standards of the scientific method.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
actually I would replace time with movement , since it would be more accurate

since the essence of time is based on the movement of object(s) and interactions

no getting around that , no matter the angle of criticism


Time would be a separation of moments (or movements).

how so ?

“ “ Originally Posted by thinking
actually I would replace time with movement , since it would be more accurate

since the essence of time is based on the movement of object(s) and interactions

no getting around that , no matter the angle of criticism ”



“ Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat
Time would be a separation of moments (or movements).

how so ?

the separation between objects is based on the objects themselves and therefore time is irrelevant

time has no meaning here , to the objects themselves

I didn't say objects. I said moments. Without time everything would happen at once.

Your impressions of the current state of our knowledge has lead you to some conclusions that overstep the bounds of theory.

To discuss the topics of matter/energy, time/space, and gravity/inertial from the perspective that there are relationships between them is scientific.

To say that these relationships are understood by science to the degree that we can move them from theory to reality is the overstep.

I understand what you mean but there are aspects that are self explanatory.

In regard to matter/energy, there is clearly an equivalence. And co-joined is a good way to express that equivalence. We agree that far. But we don't know what causes mass.

I'd disagree. A lack of energy causes mass. The question is why.
That too I believe is self explanatory.


We have theories but there is insufficient evidence to call them reality.I would agree with that at the particle level and would say that when a particle exists, it is composed of energy and the nature of the energy contained in particles gives the particle duality, i.e. wave/particle characteristics at the particle level.

I understand that concept but for some reason I believe it wrong.
I don't think light is a particle no matter how much we think it behaves like one. Light is energy and they behave in two different fashions.

Before when I thought that the neutrino could be a massless particle and traveled faster than light I though perhaps this particles mass may be dimensionaly offset but after they discovered that neutrinos change flavor over time it meant they did have mass because they experience time.

If you combine particles into objects, then the object is internally expressing the frequency of the particles but the object itself, the classical object, can be at rest.

I don't think you understood what I meant.
You're talking about movement on a quantum level. I'm not. He asked "what is space". I think we'll evantually describe what space is on the quantum level but not yet. I'm looking into M thoery.

The motion of an object is relative to other objects.This is true for the wave/particle nature of particles and if you mean that there must be movement at the particle level then it is true.

Now you're following me.
General Relativity. It's not just a comparison of macroscopic movement it describes everything! Everything in this universe is about differences in motion, speed and distance as compared to something else. THIS is the reason why quantum mechanics appears chaotic. A computer merely deals with on an off the same as stop and start. Imagine there being no stop. Only relative position as concerns everything else but absolutely everything is in motion. Imagine how many variables that would produce and how many end products, it would even defy causality.


But an object can be at rest relative to other objects and time will still pass.This is an overstep from theory to what you have concluded to be reality.

That's because Macroscopicly nothing is at rest. Everything is relative to something else. But there is one final relativity, Universal constancy which is motion.

When two objects are traveling at the same speed they will travel at the same "TIME" aswell. They are traveling the same distance in the same amount of time. AND they are experiencing the same TIME for the Distance that they travel. It's a reciprocal equation and it works every time.


We not only don't know what causes mass, we don't know what causes gravity.

That's the brillance of it all quantum wave. Mass isn't caused, it merely is. To describe what caused mass in the first place we'd have to go back to the begining of the universe (assuming there was a begining.)

But I'll entertain it anyway.
Mass: weight in a gravitational field.
And the question is what causes gravity. Kinda the same question. The answer is: The lack of motion causes Mass and thus causes gravity. I'm not saying I know it all. But I've been thinking about this for about a year or two and it seems litterally motion is the reason for everything that exist...which is crazy when you think about it. General Relativity is really describing just about everything...it's amazing.

We quite clearly know the effect of gravity and General Relativity has it described to a great degree of accuracy. But it is still theory and not fact.

I know. I'm not sure why at this point but I accept it. Perhapse the Unified Force Theory will correct all that, who knows.

The coupling of space and time assumes a start point from zero volume at t = 0, or at least that is the common conception of what is implied by GR. Your reference to the universe's state of motion refers to the expansion, assumes zero volume at t = 0, and not only gives no explanation for pre-conditions, it is implied that there we no pre-conditions, i.e. it implies that the energy came from nowhere.

Or infinity, however you want to put it. We have a lot of words for it.
You're pretty smart. You've thought about this too, perhaps.

You see I have no choice to believe this. Previously I believed the Big Bang theory was propper and logical. It seemed like simply ballistics. However the universe isn't slowing down and that is precondition for an explosion in fact just the opposite the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate , so we're back to motion again. The Big Bang Theory has been disproven as default.

The Universe wasn't set in motion by an explosion. We can't give that theory credence any more. What we though we saw was not reality and that was the entire basis of the theory or the cause. Now that we know that netrino's are not massless we know space is filled with them and as some have speculated the universe should have collapsed. the visible matter/ darkmatter ratio vs energy is far too imbalanced to assume that an explosion got us started or is even keeping us going.


Cleary that is just theory and there are alternative theories that accomodate pre-conditions.The entire paragraph gets mixed reviews from the standpoint of theory vs. reality. There is no argument with the energy and motion part. But when you give GR the status of fact and not theory, and then ignore the incompatibility between General Relativity and the quantum realm buy advancing string theory as the answer, you are overstepping the standards of the scientific method.


You're RIGHT. I can't assume String Theory or the Theory "Formly Known as String Theory is" right. I can tell you that since it includes motion that it is a likely cannidate because it does fit many of the concepts. I won't wave the flag of String or M Theory but General Relativity does describe how this universe works, by means of motion and we know the quantum level works on motion as well. It's the only link between the quantum world and the macroscopic world.

That is what we should be exploring.

I didn't say objects. I said moments. Without time everything would happen at once.

I disagree

what your assuming is that ALL objects have the same momentive energy as ALL other objects , hence everything would happen at once , they don't

for instance

if you ride a bicycle from point A to B and I drive a 500hp Mustang full throttle from the same point A to B

does the crossing of the line from point A to B happen at once for bicycle and the Mustang ?

I think not

therefore this thinking that without time things would happen at once is false

WTH is momentive energy???

Your "argument" assumes what you're trying to prove.

what your assuming is that ALL objects have the same momentive energy as ALL other objects , hence everything would happen at once , they don't

This whole statement didn't make any sense.


if you ride a bicycle from point A to B and I drive a 500hp Mustang full throttle from the same point A to B

does the crossing of the line from point A to B happen at once for bicycle and the Mustang ?

I think not


Your line of thought shows that what I originally stated was not understood. Let's examine your example across 100 moments in time (say from t=0 to t=100). I start riding my bicycle at [point=a, t=0] and you start driving your mustang at [point=a, t=0]. I finish riding my bicycle at [point=b, t=100] where you finish driving your mustang at [point=b, t=20]. You clearly reach point B before I do and let's say from t=20 to t=100 you spend your time drinking a soda.

The important thing to note is that we shared exactly 100 moments in time. If time were removed for those those 100 moments then they would happen all at once. You would be starting at point A, finishing at point B, and drinking your soda all at the same time.


therefore this thinking that without time things would happen at once is false

You didn't demonstrate that.

I disagree

what your assuming is that ALL objects have the same momentive energy as ALL other objects , hence everything would happen at once , they don't

for instance

if you ride a bicycle from point A to B and I drive a 500hp Mustang full throttle from the same point A to B

does the crossing of the line from point A to B happen at once for bicycle and the Mustang ?

I think not

therefore this thinking that without time things would happen at once is false


thinking=Bishadi?

The writing skills are almost 99.9% to within accuracy.

This whole statement didn't make any sense.



Your line of thought shows that what I originally stated was not understood. Let's examine your example across 100 moments in time (say from t=0 to t=100). I start riding my bicycle at [point=a, t=0] and you start driving your mustang at [point=a, t=0]. I finish riding my bicycle at [point=b, t=100] where you finish driving your mustang at [point=b, t=20]. You clearly reach point B before I do and let's say from t=20 to t=100 you spend your time drinking a soda.

The important thing to note is that we shared exactly 100 moments in time. If time were removed for those those 100 moments then they would happen all at once. You would be starting at point A, finishing at point B, and drinking your soda all at the same time.



Hi Crunchy Cat. I couldn't help overhear what you are saying. Perhaps you areboth, as observers, not sharing 100 moments in time. It reinforces the idea that time is something tangible in space. What would happen if it was determined that both observers experienced 100 moments as indivuals? Maybe, the 100 moments would then reveal itself as strictly being a personal experience for each observer.

The 100 moments of each observer would only ever become a shared experience in the eyes of a third observer who was watching everything. I think you have identified the role of a third observer as being that of four dimensional space.

Relativistically-speaking, time is broken up in into future and past, because of an absolute local now, which belongs to the observers interpretation of reality.The ''now'' however, actually lives alongside all of history, both future and past; in relativity, there is no such thing as a present time, and only events which could be seen as all frozen in time. This means that when big bang happened, a big crunch soon followed!

Hi Crunchy Cat. I couldn't help overhear what you are saying. Perhaps you areboth, as observers, not sharing 100 moments in time.

That's more than a perhaps. We wouldn't be. Relativity would throw things off by a fraction of a fraction. I would have 100 moments and he would have 99.99999999999999... mainly because his mustang gave him a high acceleration field and that slows time. The point of course was that if we collapse time, all those moments occur at once.


It reinforces the idea that time is something tangible in space.

As far as we know, it's not only tangible but it's part of space (which is why relativity refers to it as space-time).


What would happen if it was determined that both observers experienced 100 moments as indivuals? Maybe, the 100 moments would then reveal itself as strictly being a personal experience for each observer.

It would mean reality is working :).


The 100 moments of each observer would only ever become a shared experience in the eyes of a third observer who was watching everything. I think you have identified the role of a third observer as being that of four dimensional space.

Sorta, ... but certainly close enough.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
if you ride a bicycle from point A to B and I drive a 500hp Mustang full throttle from the same point A to B

does the crossing of the line from point A to B happen at once for bicycle and the Mustang ?

I think not ”

Your line of thought shows that what I originally stated was not understood. Let's examine your example across 100 moments in time (say from t=0 to t=100). I start riding my bicycle at [point=a, t=0] and you start driving your mustang at [point=a, t=0]. I finish riding my bicycle at [point=b, t=100] where you finish driving your mustang at [point=b, t=20]. You clearly reach point B before I do and let's say from t=20 to t=100 you spend your time drinking a soda.

so you agree that the Mustang gets from point A to B faster than the bicycle

good

The important thing to note is that we shared exactly 100 moments in time. If time were removed for those those 100 moments then they would happen all at once. You would be starting at point A, finishing at point B, and drinking your soda all at the same time.

say though there are no moments in time

does it matter towards the out come

“



so you agree that the Mustang gets from point A to B faster than the bicycle

good



say though there are no moments in time

does it matter towards the out come

If there are no moments in time then it means that all past, present, and future exists at once and the separation of moments is an illusion.

Originally Posted by thinking

so you agree that the Mustang gets from point A to B faster than the bicycle

good

say though there are no moments in time

does it matter towards the out come

If there are no moments in time then it means that all past, present, and future exists at once and the separation of moments is an illusion.

yet the Mustang reaches the end point before bicycle

my point is that whether we measure what object gets too a point sooner than another has nothing to do with time

but has all to do with the properties of the objects themselves

for instance ;

could the introduction of time alone towards the bicycle able the bicycle to move as fast as the Mustang ?

yet the Mustang reaches the end point before bicycle

my point is that whether we measure what object gets too a point sooner than another has nothing to do with time

It sounds like you just stated that whether or not a human performs a distance measurment has nothing to do with time. Did you mean that or something else? Perhaps whether or not an object traverses a distance has nothing to do with time?


but has all to do with the properties of the objects themselves

for instance ;

could the introduction of time alone towards the bicycle able the bicycle to move as fast as the Mustang ?

Time is already introduced for both... so a better question might be would the subtraction of time from the bicycle enable it to reach point B before the mustang? The answer is yes. Take time away from the bicycle and it's entire past, present, and future has already happened every time the Mustang traverses to a new moment between point A and B.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
yet the Mustang reaches the end point before bicycle

my point is that whether we measure what object gets too a point sooner than another has nothing to do with time

It sounds like you just stated that whether or not a human performs a distance measurment has nothing to do with time.

yes

Time is already introduced for both...

yes

but what is the end consequence of the race if time is not introduced ?

nothing


so a better question might be would the subtraction of time from the bicycle enable it to reach point B before the mustang? The answer is yes.

actually no

your assuming that time has some sort of influence on any physical object , time doesn't

why though ?

because time is the measurement of an objects movement(s) ONLY

Take time away from the bicycle and it's entire past, present, and future has already happened every time the Mustang traverses to a new moment between point A and B.

this is erroneous

your thinking in terms of mathematical movement ( which has nothing to do with the essence of the motivation of movement towards the objects in the first place ) , rather than the physical dynamical movement of objects

Time is an illusion.
Created by humans for humans to keep track ot their lives and the things in it.

Time is an illusion.
Created by humans for humans to keep track ot their lives and the things in it.

exactly

but to add

also to try to understand the movement of things

time wasn't meant to be a physical influence on anything

HOW has this absurdity gone on&on&on&on&on sooooo loooooooooooong???

HOW has this absurdity gone on&on&on&on&on sooooo loooooooooooong???

what absurdity exactly ?

Space is the 3D area in which the universe exists. It is NOT made of anything.

Space is the 3D area in which the universe exists. It is NOT made of anything.

true

space is not made of anything

but space is a consequence of the manifestation of energy/matter though

No. It is not.

but space is a consequence of the manifestation of energy/matter though

No. It is not.

yes it is

tell me what then is the essence of space then ?

There is no essence of space. You may as well ask what is the essence of area.

There is no essence of space.

are you sure ?

Space is the 3D area in which the universe exists.

Space is the 3D area in which the universe exists.

of course

your point though