What is space made of?

[Oli]

Okay, so space, it has no construction

Does it not?

Sort of. Virtual particles and some forms of exotic energy may actually be necessary for a vaccum to be a vaccum.

as it's just dimentions

No.

therefore the universe must have no boundries

That doesn't follow.

as without construction there can be no difference between space and nothing.

But space may not be "nothing".

Therefore our universe is all

That's why it's called "universe".

it is infinite yet it does not change

Infinite in extent or duration?
Certainly not (as far as we know) infinite in duration, and see later.
But it does change: entropy for one thing.

nothing controlls the 4 dimensions

I'm not sure what you mean by "controls".

and the universe exists in nothing.

Meh, that's an unaswered (unaswerable?) question.
There is a thread somewhere on "What lies outside the universe".
And that question alone suggests that the universe is not infinite in extent.

 

[mickeyboy2007]

Does it not?



No.


That doesn't follow.


But space may not be "nothing".

Exactly my point.

That's why it's called "universe".

As we currently know it.

Infinite in extent or duration?
Certainly not (as far as we know) infinite in duration, and see later.
But it does change: entropy for one thing.

Extent and duration, my point being if literial space is nothing, how can it house and keep the 4 dimensions in which we exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "controls".

The laws of the shape and time we exist, 4d, the containment of the universe, and what stops this the universe from forever expanding at infinate speed, space being the pocket of the universe hence, if you were (if being able to of couse) to travel back 1000 years in time, would the universe be there, no.

Meh, that's an unaswered (unaswerable?) question.
There is a thread somewhere on "What lies outside the universe".
And that question alone suggests that the universe is not infinite in extent.

Exactly also, how can one maintain a narrow minded opinion that space is simply room in which the universe exists made of nothing. (Someone objected to my earlier quote re space movement earlier P15.) If the universe is not infinate, literial space is someting and not nothing if it's contained.

 

[Oli]

Exactly also, how can one maintain a narrow minded opinion that space is simply room in which the universe exists made of nothing.

Something of a confusing sentence.
Narrow-minded how?
Because you disagree with it?
Space isn't "simply room in which the universe exists", it's part of the universe.

(Someone objected to my earlier quote re space movement earlier P15.)

You mean Crunchy's comment?

Incorrect. Points of space are added all the time resulting in an expanding universe. As a result some galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light multiplied by several factors. Matter cannot move that fast; therefore, it's space itself that's moving.

Which is true.

If the universe is not infinate, literial space is someting and not nothing if it's contained.

Doesn't follow, or at least I'm missing your logic.
It's not "contained" as such, it just hasn't had time to spread out into whatever's "outside".

 

[Oli]

As we currently know it.

Nope, by definition.

Extent and duration, my point being if literial space is nothing, how can it house and keep the 4 dimensions in which we exist.

Because it's all part of existence.
It doesn't "house" the dimensions.

The laws of the shape and time we exist, 4d, the containment of the universe, and what stops this the universe from forever expanding at infinate speed, space being the pocket of the universe hence, if you were (if being able to of couse) to travel back 1000 years in time, would the universe be there, no.

It is expanding, probably forever, but not at "infinite speed" since there's no meaning to that term - speed compared to what?.
Yes the universe would be there 1,000 years ago.
Unless you think all the history books are fake, and the stars too...

 

[mickeyboy2007]

(I didn't mean to be harsh)


Just narrow minded as we all accept space to be just room containing all as part of the universe, a vacuum to be an area with no mass, like there is in no more to it, my point was at the time being if you were able to make a controlled movement of literial space in a direct beam, you could send morse code at an instant speed accross the universe, eg not moving the matter within space but space itself.

I've been beaten off my track a little, and i don't know my logic at the moment...

 

[Oli]

(I didn't mean to be harsh)

Just narrow minded as we all accept space to be just room containing all as part of the universe, a vacuum to be an area with no mass, like there is in no more to it, my point was at the time being if you were able to make a controlled movement of literial space in a direct beam, you could send morse code at an instant speed accross the universe, eg not moving the matter within space but space itself.

Congratulations, you're not the only one:
http://members.shaw.ca/mike.anderton/WarpDrive.pdf
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
The problem being is that we don't know how to do it, from an engineering perspective.

 

[thinking]

so then , are we in agreement that space in and of its self has no substance of any kind associated with its self ?

or do others still disagree ?

 

[granpa]

I agree with Professor Einstein. Space has no substance but it can still be thought of as a kind of ether.

some scientists now think that 'information' may be the basic bulding block of reality, not mass or energy. I think that describes space very well.

 

[thinking]

I agree with Professor Einstein. Space has no substance but it can still be thought of as a kind of ether.

ehhh...?

some scientists now think that 'information' may be the basic building block of reality, not mass or energy. I think that describes space very well.

really ?

so then where does the info. come from then ? if not from a mass or energy ?

where does this info emanate from ?

 

[granpa]

where does mass and energy emanate from?


http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.

But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else--with the help of small floats, for instance--we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics--if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

 

[thinking]

where does mass and energy emanate from?


http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.

But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else--with the help of small floats, for instance--we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics--if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

so are you saying that ether is a consequence and a product of space ?

so that space its self and space in and and of its self produces ether ?

or is ether a consequence of the energy and/or matter in space ?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Conventional thought. But space exists, here and above the atmosphere and still, in the core of the sun. It is the space in which the universe occupies. The original question asks 'what is space made from?' If space is nothing, how does it exist?

Coventional thought hell! It's the definition!

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
A perfect vacuum is nothing. ”


CC ----- Incorrect. It is at a bare minimum length, width, height, and time.


Stranger === Infantile absurdity.


“Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
An area of space with absolutely nothing in it. ”


CC ----- Sort of. Virtual particles and some forms of exotic energy may actually be necessary for a vaccum to be a vaccum.


Stranger === Then it's not a vacuum.



“Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Everything that exists is contained in space. ”


CC ----- Possible, but it doesn't seem likely. Our universe has bounds at any given time and that implies there is *something* beyond its bounds.


Stranger === Our universe does not have bounds.
IF our universe had bounds & there were something beyond it, that something would necessarily exist in space.


“Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
There is nothing to the makeup of space that can be moved. ”

Incorrect. Points of space are added all the time resulting in an expanding universe. As a result some galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light multiplied by several factors. Matter cannot move that fast; therefore, it's space itself that's moving.

Points can't be added to space.
Space cannot move at all. If the universe is expanding too fast for you, it doesn't help to claim something which cannot move is moving.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

constant ment time, soz for being unclear after working 12 hour day. Okay, so space, it has no construction, as it's just dimentions, therefore the universe must have no boundries, as without construction there can be no difference between space and nothing. Therefore our universe is all, nothing else exists, it is infinite yet it does not change, nothing controlls the 4 dimensions and the universe exists in nothing. Is that your theory?

What would you want the universe to exist in??? A box? Aether? Fabric? Water? A crystal ball on someone's coffee table?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Space has no substance but it can still be thought of as a kind of ether.

That sentence contradicts itself.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Stranger === Infantile absurdity.

A purely subjective response. It neither provides knowledge or supports your position.

“Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
An area of space with absolutely nothing in it. ”

Stranger === Then it's not a vacuum.

The concept you have of a vaccum might not actually exist then.

Stranger === Our universe does not have bounds.
IF our universe had bounds & there were something beyond it, that something would necessarily exist in space.

If our universe didn't have bounds then it couldn't be expanding... but it clearly is. Both space and time are also constructs of our universe specifically.

Points can't be added to space.
Space cannot move at all. If the universe is expanding too fast for you, it doesn't help to claim something which cannot move is moving.

The very fabric of our universe is comprised of both space and time. If more of that fabric isn't added then expansion isn't possible... but the universe is clearly expanding. The very act of adding fabric to the whole causes the rest of the fabric to be pushed out (i.e. move).

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

Your infantile absurdity provided no knowledge & supported nothing.

A vacuum may or may not exist. I don't know. I do know the definition & what cannot fit into it.

There's an electric fence around us???

Space and time are not constructs of our universe.

WHAT is this fabric??? WHO is adding it???

What we can currently observe seems to be "expanding". What we can currently observe may be a tiny bit of the universe. Either way, galaxy groups seem to be traveling thru space farther from each other. It's not space that's moving, it's galaxy groups.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

-=-
Your infantile absurdity provided no knowledge & supported nothing.

And your current emotional response doesn't change the exposure of your previous subjective response.

A vacuum may or may not exist. I don't know. I do know the definition & what cannot fit into it.

Your knowledge unfortunately appears to be way out of date. Here is something that can help bring you up to speed.

http://particle-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/whats_in_a_vacuum

There's an electric fence around us???

Space and time are not constructs of our universe.

Cosmology and QM show quite differently.

WHAT is this fabric???

The smallest components of space-time are currently unknown... so for now space-time itself will have to do; however, if you're interested in better understanding the underlying fabric of our universe (and reality itself) from a theoretical standpoint then studying M-thoery would be a great start.

WHO is adding it???

That question is flawed. Why would it even be a consideration that some external life form adding it? If your question is really "how does additional space get added to the whole for our universe?" then the answer is currently unknown.

What we can currently observe seems to be "expanding". What we can currently observe may be a tiny bit of the universe. Either way, galaxy groups seem to be traveling thru space farther from each other. It's not space that's moving, it's galaxy groups.

I'll explain. First and foremost something has to be understood. Matter (not space) cannot move at or faster than light speed. To do so requires infinite (or more) energy... and no such quantity exists in our universe.

Now onto what we can observe. We see galaxies moving apart from each other FASTER than the speed of light. We've observed them moving apart more than two times faster in fact. Since matter cannot move that fast, space itself is getting shoved around (the container of matter).

We can also observe that light observed at great distance is getting stretched out into the red spectrum.

We can also observe the remnants of different stages in the universe's history and they show a rapid outward inflation.

Put them all together and it's quite self-evident that our unvierse is expanding.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
A perfect vacuum is nothing. ”

CC ----- Incorrect. It is at a bare minimum length, width, height, and time.

Stranger === Infantile absurdity.

It simply is infantile. Nothing emotional on my part. If I say a tabletop is nothing but marble & you say that's incorrect because it can be measured, it's infantile absurdity.
By definition, a vacuum is nothing.


It's not my knowledge that's the problem. I know the definition of a vacuum. Do you?
By definition, a vacuum is nothing. Or more clearly, an area with nothing in it.


Cosmology and QM do not show that. As long as anything exists, there is space & time. IF Big Bang is correct, space & time existed before it.


Space has no components. Space is the 3D area in which everything exists. There are no components to it.
Gee, thanks for the tip on studying M-thoery. I'll reciprocate. You'll understand Cosmology, QM & M-theory better once you understand some simple definitions such as space, vacuum & nothing. Another tip : M-theory has yet to be proven.


Galaxy GROUPS seem to be moving faster than light. Nothing can travel faster than light. We can't handle this so we must come up with something. Ah ha! Let's pretend space is a material thing which can move! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Trouble is, other than thinking space is a material thing, if nothing can travel faster than light, this space thingy cannot travel faster than light any more than galaxy GROUPS can.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Galaxy GROUPS seem to be moving faster than light. Nothing can travel faster than light. We can't handle this so we must come up with something. Ah ha! Let's pretend space is a material thing which can move! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Trouble is, other than thinking space is a material thing, if nothing can travel faster than light, this space thingy cannot travel faster than light any more than galaxy GROUPS can.

The observation of galaxies with high redshift was done more than 20 years after the publication of GR. Also, you clearly fail to grasp the difference between moving and comoving or the notion of the a(t) length used in cosmology. Look up the FRW metric.

Gee, thanks for the tip on studying M-thoery. I'll reciprocate. You'll understand Cosmology, QM & M-theory better once you understand some simple definitions such as space, vacuum & nothing. Another tip : M-theory has yet to be proven.

If you fail to grasp the particulars of GR you have no chance of grasping M theory.