What is space made of?

dsdsds said:
How can you be so sure? Any volume of space we define contains something (discovered or not discovered). Is it easier to conclude that empty space or nothingness probably does not exist?
Click to expand...

Because the one thing we are sure of is that before that volume of space existed, thre was nothing! Put it this way, if u believe that the universe is infinite in the spatia and time dimnsions, then u are right, there may be no such thing as nothingness.
 
Nothing is made of anything! There is no substance making up matter, never mind space. The more you try to figure out what anything is made, the more form you reveal. There is never any "substance" to anything. What we call "solid" is only fuzziness. It is an artifact of language that separates "things" from "events".
 
No I would say nothing is the absence of energy and space-time
Click to expand...
That might be so, but what would contain this nothingness so that it can be measured? Is it possible to have a volume whose walls lack energy? The more thought we put into solidifying the abstract concept of nothingness, the more it seems to be an impossible state to achieve.

In any case, what you call Space-Time is only a measure of the energy difference measured by two (or more) observers of the same event. The observers must be in reference frames that are moving at different velocities relative to one another; if they moved in the same frame as the event, they'll measure identical energies.
The preceding argument leaves Space-Time out of the definition of nothingness - I would say that, nothingness is the absolute absence of energy.
 
That might be so, but what would contain this nothingness so that it can be measured? Is it possible to have a volume whose walls lack energy? The more thought we put into solidifying the abstract concept of nothingness, the more it seems to be an impossible state to achieve.
Click to expand...
Measurement depends on placing an artificial frame around a phenomenon that is inherently frameless (language does the same thing). Can you give me one example of a "wall" or boundry in the universe? Under magnification, it can be seen that there are no real boundries. Indeed, matter itself is an abstract concept. What physics describes is relationships, not some basic stuff out of which everything is made. So, space is made of measurement, it's an artificial concept formed by the fact that everything doesn't happen in the same spot.
 
Spidergoat; say you had two mugs sitting on a table a couple of milimeters apart, one filled with boiling water and the other with ice cubes - the equilibrium point between them is a physical boundary. The same holds for magnetic or any other field type. Boundaries do not have to be visible under the microscope, however in all cases, boundaries are points of equilibrium that are describable by physical law. They are points where the energy from one source balances out the other (even if we are describing a ball bouncing off a wall).
 
apendrapew said:
Space is made of out more stuff. That's the general gist that I'm getting from "Quantum Gravity" and "A New Kind of Science". Kind of a bizzare concept. They say that all matter in the universe is just a feature of space, so in reality, all that exists is space. That kind of makes sense because space only seems to exist with its relationship to matter. Think of a universe that has absolutely nothing in it. Would space exist?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Hello. There are at least two other dimensions known by science. Easily figurable. Get the maths guys.

http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu375-1.htm

bradguth said:
By far, space is made of photons, as in trillions upon trillions more so than atoms, especially if you'd care to account for all of the resting photons, such as those associated with dark-matter and/or of what's surrounding an/or comprising that of a blackhole.

Goto; "Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

or into my URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photons-m3.htm

I've been summarily informed by God that absolutely nothing goes faster than Light speed, however Dr. Wang's god can apparently kick some serious photon butt up to 310 X light speed, although that effort requires an existing conduit or beam (photonic waveguide) and a fairly specific environment as to making that happen.

At least so far the likes of the NEC lab and of their resident photon wizard Dr. Wang have been exceeding the speed of light for years, yet the GR and QM folks are still freaking out because, that accomplishment essentially screws up every conceivable formula they've got, and then some.

As such something, perhaps quantum-string like, has been pushed to 310 X light speed, and as slight as it might be, said photons do manage to carry about a touch of mass.
Click to expand...
 
Bigger Ape said:
What is space? Loosely, it is the mass analog of zero (a datum line - in other words; what is not space is mass).
...
Whats your take RawThinkTank?
Click to expand...

That would pose a problem of motion of particles. Why would what is not space move at high speeds without being obstructed by space ?
 
That would pose a problem of motion of particles. Why would what is not space move at high speeds without being obstructed by space ?
Click to expand...
The answer to your question depends on what the particles you mention are. Assuming they are matter then, looking at your question with the (I stress) loose description I gave, it won't. The nature of physics (and one of it's greatest shortcomings) is that systems are isolated for analysis - for instance, when we pump up a balloon, we can (safely?) take the ambient pressure as the datum for the pressure in the balloon. In this case, we have isolated the energy in the balloon for study with the ambient pressure as our zero or space. A similar position is taken when we consider mass or matter.

There is a serious flaw in the above approach however, if we realise that there is no such thing as a closed system. Then even a datum point would be truthfuly considered as an integral part of a system and any motion (or other energy flow) would be obstructed in some way (as is observed). The downside to isolating systems is that we cannot see below the datum, leading to ever more elaborate fudges and fixes (e.g - I diverge slightly - seeing uncertainty as a law rather than a robust illustration of the limitations of analytical tools).

In truth pure space is an idealistic abstract.
 
Bigger Ape said:
That might be so, but what would contain this nothingness so that it can be measured? Is it possible to have a volume whose walls lack energy? The more thought we put into solidifying the abstract concept of nothingness, the more it seems to be an impossible state to achieve.

In any case, what you call Space-Time is only a measure of the energy difference measured by two (or more) observers of the same event. The observers must be in reference frames that are moving at different velocities relative to one another; if they moved in the same frame as the event, they'll measure identical energies.
The preceding argument leaves Space-Time out of the definition of nothingness - I would say that, nothingness is the absolute absence of energy.
Click to expand...

The what about before the big bang. When the big bang happened, it created space-time AND matter. My definition of nothing is more comprehensive and tells us that only before the big bang, there was nothing.
 
The what about before the big bang. When the big bang happened, it created space-time AND matter. My definition of nothing is more comprehensive and tells us that only before the big bang, there was nothing.
Click to expand...
No, there has never been nothing - if there was a big bang, then energy preceded it ...or conservation laws would be broken. The concept of pure nothingness would seem to be an impossibility.
If I may add; the model of classical mechanics (Newtonian) we are taught early on is riddled with absolutes and does a lot to form an early and abiding visual picture of the World that isnt accurate; thats where our strong concepts of absolute nothingness spring from. Hamiltonian mechanics is much more difficult (I don't claim to know it that much), but being based on energy rather than on vectors, would provide a deeper early grounding for us (if there was a way to simplify it for secondary level), especially in areas where conservation is required.
The other thing I have against absolute nothingness is that we've not yet fully explained matter - there are areas like quantum entanglement that fall almost wholly outside of what is presently known...
 
latest quantum pop science suggests that beyond our baryons and muons there is a blurry set of loops and strings that have frequency but are not energy, have dimension but not mass. some say this could be the ultimate "canvas" that the universe is painted on so to speak, a sort of efervesing frothy sponge of sub-reality.

If anyone can tell me more about a frothy sponge-like sub reality, do tell!
 
there is a blurry set of loops and strings that have frequency but are not energy, have dimension but not mass
Click to expand...
This has to be wrong. Anything that has frequency is energetic ...don't read popular science, it'll send you to the doc.
 
Er,
HeadAches right, if he's referring to the latest version (v5.0?) of m-theory...
Mass, energy & particles are the products of the interaction of multi dimensional membranes...

< quote >
No, there has never been nothing - if there was a big bang, then energy preceded it ...or conservation laws would be broken. The concept of pure nothingness would seem to be impossibility.
< /quote >

Its and old idea that matter/antimatter was created during the Big bang and the slight, billion to one, imbalance in favour of matter is balanced by the `negative energy` gravity... and so on ...so that all the sums, (electrical, rotational, mass energy, time space etc.) cancel out quite neatly to exactly zero...

Basically the universe arose from a `false vacuum` created by the interaction of two 5 dimensional membranes ...
 
Its and old idea that matter/antimatter was created during the Big bang and the slight, billion to one, imbalance in favour of matter is balanced by the `negative energy` gravity... and so on ...so that all the sums, (electrical, rotational, mass energy, time space etc.) cancel out quite neatly to exactly zero...
Click to expand...
You've described an equilibrium ...not zero (beware that number!) :)
 
Doh!
Hum, tnx for the correction...

yeah, the `sum` of the universe today is the same as the `sum`, er, `before` the big bang...(no energy, no time , no space, no momentum no particles etc...)
 
Interesting discussion here. What is Space made of. Well how do you create A space?
Perhaps we will never find that out. What if Big Bang is just a pop inside an even bigger Universe surrounding ours. There could even be several, there could be infinite.
Superstrings perhaps, that's what I think. We still have a lot of thinking to do. The only place that I know of from where you can create space and a Universe is inside your own mind. just some thoughts of mine. Please don't flame me now... :) This was my first post.
 
Spidergoat; say you had two mugs sitting on a table a couple of milimeters apart, one filled with boiling water and the other with ice cubes - the equilibrium point between them is a physical boundary. The same holds for magnetic or any other field type. Boundaries do not have to be visible under the microscope, however in all cases, boundaries are points of equilibrium that are describable by physical law. They are points where the energy from one source balances out the other (even if we are describing a ball bouncing off a wall).
Click to expand...
I would suggest that such points are mathematical abstractions, only applicable at certain scales. At the atomic level, such boundries are still penetrated by high-speed particles from space as if the boundry did not exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top