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 models that have superceded the original "big bang" theory.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.
.
