What is space made of?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

quantum harmonic oscillators?

 

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

Vacuum energy density: 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.
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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

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?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). 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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). 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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oke:.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

yes we could chat about this indefinitely, I'll look for your posts on gravity and mass.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)?

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

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?