What is space made of?
- Thread starter irishbones
- Start date
Space is made of energy. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Point A and Point B = A---B. The reason for this is because the energy between the two points is less.
Distance can be represented by the energy it takes to bridge the gap. So space itself is the "energy" of the gap between two points. The actual visual of space is illusion because it's all about energy.
Time = Energy, Change = Energy, and Consciousness is the universe itself because all time and change exist only in our mind based on the vulnerability of our perceptions and the limits of our lifespan. Energy is timeless. Distance doesn't actually exist outside of perception. Space is energy and can be better thought of as a river which flows in certain directions and the flow we call it gravity. Gravity influences time by influencing the energy of space around an object.
Any scientists here to check what I just said? thats the most simple way I could explain.
A simplified way to understand how I think of space is, say we are on earth and I need to get to California? The distance between me and California I represent by the amount of gas it takes to get from here to Cali using a car or the amount of fuel to get to Cali by plane. The air and weather conditions also influences the rate of speed an object flows through time, as does the amount of energy. A faster moving object flows through time faster and time slows down around it. On the other hand if an object has extreme gravity so that it sucks you into it at the speed of light, such as a black hole, the time around that object will be completely distorted.
If you are falling towards the earth, the longer you fall the faster you fall, gravity pulls you towards the earth but its the energy of gravity which influences the river of space and the river flows toward the earth because the earth is like an object or pebble in a river of space.
If you are falling towards the earth, the longer you fall the faster you fall, gravity pulls you towards the earth but its the energy of gravity which influences the river of space and the river flows toward the earth because the earth is like an object or pebble in a river of space.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Space isn't "made" of anything in that nothing makes it up. Space is an entity consisting of the three 3 spatial dimensions.
Would be the same as asking what time is made from
Would be the same as asking what time is made from
Yes, and after we agree with the dimensionality of space there is the question of what is in space.
The easy answer is matter. If we agree that matter is in space we have the possibilities that space between objects of matter is empty, or space between objects of matter contains something that isn't matter.
If we take the first possibility that space between objects of matter is empty we might go a step further and say that matter is composed of fundamental particles and the space between matter and or between fundamental particles is empty. We would have to say that the forces that exist between fundamental particles are traversing empty space by way of their fields. Fields would emanate from the particles and interact.
So fundamental particles would emanate fields that allow them to interact with each other via forces that are a characteristic of their fields.
If we take the second possibility that space between objects of matter contains something that isn't matter we might go a step further and say that space contains energy density and the forces that exist between fundamental particles traverse space containing energy because their fields affect the energy density of that space.
So the fundamental particles would interact with each other by how those particles affect the energy density of that space. This would imply that fundamental particles could interact with the energy density of space.
Last edited:
Space isn't "made" of anything in that nothing makes it up. Space is an entity consisting of the three 3 spatial dimensions.
Would be the same as asking what time is made from
"Nothing" is something because there is no such thing as "nothing". And Time is energy because time is measurement of change itself. Change requires energy (duh), because change is the transofmration of energy from one state to another, because nothing changes if nothing moves, and all movement in the universe requires energy which means change/time is measured energy.
Space is not an entity, it's an energy state, just like how water can become ice, but you can have ice which floats on water on the north pole, because the water is in different states. Space is the water of the universe while the planets are the ice. It's all one thing, and space is a thing therefore it is energy and this is the only way to make sense of dark energy and dark matter.
The observable 3d universe contains far more energy than can be explained by saying space is empty, so it's a "thing", and the debate is what thing it is.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
How can nothing be something if there is no such thing as nothing? I'm lost with this sentence
I wouldn't say time is energy just because it is a a measurement of change? Don't see how that follows?
So the analogy is that matter is "frozen" space?
Which can be explained by dark energy and dark matter but I don't think these are equal to space.
oneStarman
Registered Member
Curved Space - Expanding Universe
Einstein theorized that space is curved; that gravitation can be accounted for by the distortion of space by mass and that light bends to follow this curvature of space. The first experimental observation to confirm this hypothesis with carried out by observing starlight near the Sun during an eclipse in 1919. But what exactly is distorted and what is it about mass that causes it to distort.
Quantum mechanical theory postulated that everything in the observable Universe (let's forget about Dark Energy and Dark Matter for a now even though they seem to make up 75% and 20% of the Universe respectively; but are not directly observable) can be accounted for by the interaction of particles. Fermions - eg. quarks and leptons make up matter and Bosons which are the carriers of Force - eg. photons and gluons (which bind quarks together) These have all been observed and form what we refer to as the Standard Model - except for the carrier of Gravity and therefore that which causes matter to be able to distort space. This theoretical Particle although not yet observed - maybe later this year; but not yet - has been named the Higgs Boson. It is sometimes called the God particle.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as applied to particle physics, states that both the position and energy level of any individual particle cannot be simultaneously determined. Particles at any specific energy level exist in Superposition state - their position can only be expressed as a probability. While this seems like meaningless theoretical paradox - it has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments. The only time something like an electron or a star or you and I can take on a concrete existence is by breaking the uncertainty principle through observation. An Electron only exists "HERE" if by observing it we cause it to be "HERE". Who then observes the Universe - that would have to be GOD. Therefore Space and everything we know is called into existence - is made of GOD.
Einstein theorized that space is curved; that gravitation can be accounted for by the distortion of space by mass and that light bends to follow this curvature of space. The first experimental observation to confirm this hypothesis with carried out by observing starlight near the Sun during an eclipse in 1919. But what exactly is distorted and what is it about mass that causes it to distort.
Quantum mechanical theory postulated that everything in the observable Universe (let's forget about Dark Energy and Dark Matter for a now even though they seem to make up 75% and 20% of the Universe respectively; but are not directly observable) can be accounted for by the interaction of particles. Fermions - eg. quarks and leptons make up matter and Bosons which are the carriers of Force - eg. photons and gluons (which bind quarks together) These have all been observed and form what we refer to as the Standard Model - except for the carrier of Gravity and therefore that which causes matter to be able to distort space. This theoretical Particle although not yet observed - maybe later this year; but not yet - has been named the Higgs Boson. It is sometimes called the God particle.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as applied to particle physics, states that both the position and energy level of any individual particle cannot be simultaneously determined. Particles at any specific energy level exist in Superposition state - their position can only be expressed as a probability. While this seems like meaningless theoretical paradox - it has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments. The only time something like an electron or a star or you and I can take on a concrete existence is by breaking the uncertainty principle through observation. An Electron only exists "HERE" if by observing it we cause it to be "HERE". Who then observes the Universe - that would have to be GOD. Therefore Space and everything we know is called into existence - is made of GOD.
It's not made out of the same kind of stuff as particles, I think.
There is no loss of space when a particle comes into being.
Unless one of the dimensions that we don't notice is lost.
I wonder if it can be converted into something else,
just like you can convert mass into energy.
There is no loss of space when a particle comes into being.
Unless one of the dimensions that we don't notice is lost.
I wonder if it can be converted into something else,
just like you can convert mass into energy.
Last edited:
The bending of the path of photons was predicted by Einstein and was confirmed by capturing the positions of stars as their light passed close to the sun. The cause of the curved path of the light was not determined, only that the prediction of its path was confirmed by observation. A massless photon would be affected by the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of the mass of the sun. On the other hand, the path of a photon with any mass at all would be bent toward the sun by gravity.
True, and if the LHC at CERN detects evidence of Higgs decay then there will be some very happy and relieved scientists. Like you say, that is in the future, maybe this year or next giving time for repairs and data analysis. Until evidence of the Higgs is detected, the cause of gravity is unknown. That would be fine since we have the curvature of spacetime to explain gravity if it wasn't for the fact that spacetime fails in the Planck regime. That failure and the tantalizing results of lessor accelerators is behind the motivation for investment in the LHC.
One experiment that I am aware of demonstrated (within the limits of the instruments and logic of the experiment) that light (photons) were not polarized until observed. The experimenter said they had confirmed that the wave form is a set of probabilities and that the photon does not have both location and momentum until observed. This conclusion is exactly what the Uncertainty is all about. Not that we are unable to detect both the location and momentum of a photon by observation, but in fact the photon does not have individual location and momentum at all until one of those two characteristics is established by observation. If that experiment is taken as Gospel then as you say ...
However, one of my favorite sayings about Uncertainty is that the moon is still there even if we don't observe it. The point is that whether science says that particles themselves have or don't have both characteristics of location and momentum at the same time, groups of those particles have presence whether we observe them or not.
This statement identifies the boundary between science and religion. The supernatural is not a part of science and the scientific method specifically excludes it.
On the other hand, the knowledge of whether Uncertainty is the result of the fact that there is no separate location and momentum of particles, or if that Uncertainty is simply the result of reaching the limits of observability itself is not answered yet and may never be answered.
Until then the boundary between science and religion is established between the limit of our ability to observe and our unlimited ability to imagine.
Space is .....
Space is a boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.[1] Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of the boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. In mathematics spaces with different numbers of dimensions and with different underlying structures can be examined. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the universe although disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.
WIKI
Space is a boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.[1] Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of the boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. In mathematics spaces with different numbers of dimensions and with different underlying structures can be examined. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the universe although disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.
WIKI
I think that there are a large number of objections that people might take up with that definition.
Nearly every word, in fact.
One objection being: Why should people think of space as a concept any more than tables, chairs etc?
Are you sure that you didn't make up this definition yourself, Cosmic?
Have you got a link to it?
Nearly every word, in fact.
One objection being: Why should people think of space as a concept any more than tables, chairs etc?
Are you sure that you didn't make up this definition yourself, Cosmic?
Have you got a link to it?
Last edited:
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
It is impossible to break the uncertainty principle. Even when we observe.
Space is literally nothing. Since the universe began and occupied this "nothing", space inside the universe has gravity, EMR, atomic particles, etc travelling through it. "Curved space" is the effects of gravity travelling through space. You cannot curve "nothing".
That is true if you look at the event as it is perceived at the retina of our eyes by the impact of the photons that bounce off of the object or are emitted by the object and that subsequently strike the retina of our eye.
The question is more about the nature of the particles as they perform their roles as particles of mass. Uncertainty has come to mean that those particles participating in the presence of the mass do not have location or momentum, and further, they don't need location and momentum as individual characteristics. They only need to continually interact with all of the other particles in the mass to represent the presence of the mass.
At the moment of interaction, the location and momentum is established for the particles involved in that interaction, but what happens after that interaction again falls into uncertainty until the next interaction. This is how we can say that the moon is there even if we don't observe it. We know that the particles that make up the moon are continually interacting, and that at the instant of each interaction, each particle displays a momentum and location and establishes their presence. Therefore, the location and momentum of the moon is the sum of all of the interactions that are continually taking place.
Observation does not determine the location or momentum of particles interacting within a distant mass. That is determined by interactions between particles within the distant mass. Observation establishes either the location or the momentum of the photon that strikes our eye or our instruments.
All of these interactions take place in space. The finite speed of light and the dimensionality of space are measures that we use as we make sense out of what we observe.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Actually it is true all the time whether we observe or not. The uncertainty principle is deeper than just not being able to measure momentum and location at the same time because of the effects of photons on the system.
Heisenberg meant it to mean that when you know one variable, there is no other definite value for the other - only a probability which gets fuzzier the more you measure the value of the other variable.
I know. But when not observed, particles still have a presence in the mass that they occupy. The presence of each particle establishes the presence of the mass. On that basis I say the moon is there (has presence) even if we don't observe it.
Let's see if we have any agreement ... Do you agree the moon has presence even if we don't observe it?
If so, then do you agree that each particle in the moon also has presence at the instant of its interaction with other particles, though there is no observation?
If so, then do you agree that Heisenberg did not mean there was uncertainty about the presence of a particle. The uncertainty is about the specific characteristics of each particle. When not observed, we don't know either the momentum or location of a particle, but we know that the mass has presence that is established by the interactions of its particles.
Do you agree that in order for two particles to interact there would be a location where that interaction takes place? Do you agree that when particles interact at a location, the momentum of each particle determines the outcome of that interaction?
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Of course
Agreed
Agreed
Absolutely
Yes
Amonst other variables, momentum will determine the outcome of an interaction yes.
Anyway, all this started simply because I said that the uncertainty principle could not be broken - ever. I did not mean this in that we could never be certain of an object (or even a particles) presence if we didn't observe it.
Are we agreed then?
I could see how you might view this brief exchange as irrelevant relative to your proper and constructive statement.
When a particle has location it is said to be a point in space and when a particle has momentum it is said to be in the form of a wave without a particular location. By those definitions a particle can never be a point in space and a wave at the same time, hence Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
.But there is one further consideration and that is the relationship between the point and the wave. I interpret quantum mechanics to be saying that the particle (point space) is when the wave or waves are concentrated into a point, and when the energy of the point becomes the wave again it has frequency that is an expression of its energy but no point location. This could mean that the wave collapses into a point and expands out of the point space and becomes a wave again. That connection seems to be missing from QM. If there is such a connection then the force that drives the transition is also missing.
Maybe there is one more level of particle and force that is common among the fundamental particles of the standard particle model but at a lower level common to all of the fundamental particles? If so, then the missing force could be the force that unifies the forces of nature.
No need to respond since I am getting off topic but I just wanted to explain the thinking behind our brief exchange from my perspective.