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.
What is space made of?
- Thread starter irishbones
- Start date
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)
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)
eburacum45
Valued Senior Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
mario said:
Space isn't nothing though. Beyond the universe there is nothingness.
cosmictraveler said:
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
John Connellan said:
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.
Last edited:
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Pete said:
As I said
Im sure, nothingness HAS NO colour and is neither of these things!
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
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).
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.........
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.........
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
If there was no space, there would be no matter. Space is more fundamental and therefore more important than matter in this universe.
Bigger Ape
Registered Senior Member
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?
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?
John Connellan said:Im sure, nothingness HAS NO colour and is neither of these things!
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 Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Pete said:
Fair enough. Nothingness is still more than a concept IMO (without saying it exists!).
John Connellan said:
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 ?
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
RawThinkTank said:
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!