The stinking near vacuum between so many people's ears? Just for reference, my handle here doesn't indicate a professional achievement. DR stands for Donovan Ready. Toad has been my nickname for almost twenty years, but it's usually in Spanish: Sapo. Got any more questions?
What is the point of this thread is, perhaps, the more interesting question. Space is whatever you define it to be. If you define it to be nothing, then there is your answer. Why are we still here 84 posts later? In quantum physics space isn't empty as there are quantum fluctuations. You could ask "what is dark" but why would you want to ask that?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Is "dark" a thing, a lack of something, a quantity? It's however you define it it in the first place. It isn't really a "question" worth starting a thread about.
Space is not nothing nor a concept. Space is important to all things . But what is the essence of space ? That is the challenge
While dimensions can be expressed mathematically, they are most certainly very real. A square can be expressed mathematically, but squares are very real too.
Three physical, one time. You need all four to pinpoint an event in spacetime. But, disregarding time, you need 3 dimensions to locate a point in space, or on Earth, or in your living room. That's why all real things have a length, width and height. It is because the world we live in (space) is 3 dimensional (physically).
The world we live in isn't a third-grade classroom. Damn all, could you kick it up a notch? I know QFT isn't on the tip of everyone's tongue, but this insipid yada about definitions is getting fucking boring after 5 pages.
If you can't have one without the other - if you can't have space without dimensions - then that's pretty much the definition of "essence".
DaveC: Yeah, sorry. Most people that get here by passing the silly sign-up questions should know how to do basic simple searches for things. Just saying.
No it isn't . Dimensions are a mathematical description of space . A consequence of space . But the essence of space is the challenge . What came first , the object , or the object and space or space ?
Dude. Seriously. Just because math books are the place where one tends to hear about dimensions does not mean they're not there under your nose, every moment of the day. You can demonstrate, to your heart's content, that our universe has exactly three macroscale physical dimensions, and that it does not have two and it does not have four - with nothing but a piece of string. Why do you think rockets have exactly three sets of maneuvering thrusters (x, y and z)? Why do you think the rotation of aircraft is described with exactly three parameters (pitch, yaw and roll)? Why do you think a cardboard box requires exactly three measurements to determine its physical extent and volume (l,w and h)? Why do you think it takes exactly three coordinates to plot a unique point on Earth? Or anywhere else is space? In all cases, two is too few, and four is redundant. These all occur because there are exactly three mutually-independent degrees of freedom in our universe. You can move in any one of the three directions with complete freedom from the other two. That, by the way, is the definition of a dimension: a degree of freedom. There is no physical extent of space unless it has all three dimensions. Space cannot exist without them.
Yes , to your last statement All three dimensions of space were naturally apart of space to begin with , mathematics did not create space , just describe space , the nature of space .
This is getting equal parts tedious and troubling - referring you back to your own words. Let me refer you to this post, where you agreed: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-space.161078/page-4#post-3538793
