What is space ?
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
Some believe space is a constant soup of virtual particles that come into existence meet their anti-particle and are destroyed so fast they can't be observed. Personally I'm not very comfortable with this theory.
Virtual particles
Discomfort is apt.
One might ask what Dark Matter is just as easily as virtual particles. (Though this has a bit better observational evidence, the principle is nearly the same.)
Until technology advances enough to increase the accuracy of measuring and observing the infinitesimal, we have a lot of "place holders."
Looking forward to better and more accurate models to describe reality...
Current theory says space was created with the Big Bang. So by your thinking there was no room before the BB. Can you tell me what that was called then?
Space is not just "empty".
The idea of "empty" space was likely a reaction to the early debate involving The concept of the luminiferous ether and special relativity, where the ether included an absolute frame of reference associated with the ether and special relativity set aside that old notion. The debate and contention being largely around an absolute frame of reference vs no preferred frame of reference. Initially special relativity did not even really challenge the existence of "an ether". It just demonstrated that an ether was not required to explain experience.
It is not likely there are many physicists in the main stream who do not believe that space is not "empty". There is some speculation as to exactly what fills otherwise empty space. Perhaps the nail in that coffin came along since 1998 and the discovery of an acceleration in the expansion of the universe, from which followed the idea of dark energy. An energy that by its very nature fills the empty places in the universe, or what we have come to refer to as "empty space". What it is remains for now a mystery. Is it some kind of repulsive energy, a soup of virtual particles or some as yet unknown and undefined "other" substance. At this time anyone's guess is as good as another.
The irony here is that even as this debate unfolded in the early 1900s, Einstein had already played with the concept of a cosmological constant, which played a very similar role to dark energy today.., and was associated with "empty space".
BTW To the best of my understanding, Einstein never thought of space as stricktly speaking "empty", though I have seen no indication that he made any real suggestion just what there was in place of the "empty" void between objects. The fact that space and matter interact dynamically is one indication that at least as far as general relativity is concerned there must be some fundamental, if yet undefined, intrinsic substance associated with space.
If space is curved by the presence of matter and the dynamics of matter in the case of the frame-dragging effect, one cannot think of the intrinsic substance of space whether that is energy, virtual particles or some undefined other substance, as filling space. If general relativity is even just a good approximation of reality, space must be thought of as a thing, not just an empty set of dimensions.
Current theory says space was created with the Big Bang. So by your thinking there was no room before the BB. Can you tell me what that was called then?
thats the thing with the BB theory
they have no idea what happened BEFORE BB
hence a fundamental flaw in this theory of BB
I cannot see this thread becoming anything close to scientific anytime soon so I'm going to move it. Oh yeah, I'm a mod here now.
I cannot see this thread becoming anything close to scientific anytime soon so I'm going to move it. Oh yeah, I'm a mod here now.
not surprised
it is scientific to question any theory , hence the progress of science
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
et al,
OK, I'm confused. I read each post.
(MY QUESTION)
Is it not self-evident that the known universe, and beyond, is filled with "light."
Just A Thought,
R
OK, I'm confused. I read each post.
(MY QUESTION)
Is it not self-evident that the known universe, and beyond, is filled with "light."
Now, that may raise more questions; but it would seem that whatever "light" is, it floods the universe in every direction. So that the most distant luminous cosmic body is shining light out into the universe, on the opposite direction of Earth, a distance at least equal to the distance to the most distant cosmic object we can detect. And in that thought, there may be cosmic objects even further out, at a distance so vast, that light emanating from it, has not yet reached Earth.
Just A Thought,
R
Philosophically speaking, space entails both extension and duration, that is to say, space and time are defined by events, where metric distances and temporal rates are dependent on events. The most fundamental events could be vacuum fluctuations... not sure :shrug:
And matter is merely vacuum fluctuations...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
I am trying to imagine a 2 dimensional universe where motion through space would actually be a rotation of a screen - as the horizon object is rotated towards the "now" center of the screen, we would feel as if we are traveling towards that distant horizon.
...
And matter is merely vacuum fluctuations...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
I am trying to imagine a 2 dimensional universe where motion through space would actually be a rotation of a screen - as the horizon object is rotated towards the "now" center of the screen, we would feel as if we are traveling towards that distant horizon.
...
River this is misleading and inaccurate.
Scientific theory is not being questioned, and if it was, that's not a bad thing, even if it can seem that way on an internet forum. A question was posed as to what space IS and there is no mainstream answer that satisfies at this time.
But to scientists, questioning science is fundamental and necessary.
Your previous comment shows a lack of understanding about BBT.
Just because you deny your own misconceptions, doesn't mean science enthusiasts bash you for questioning theory. It may well mean they bash you for misrepresenting what theory says.
Kahn, that image looks like E8- makes me wanna go surfing.
What is space?
Space is yellow.
To paraphrase:-
Space itself, in essence and quiddity is motion, and nothing else.
Common denominator, all things are in motion, spacetime is a motion model.
No part of the universe can be observed to be without motion.
As for the BBT, the model itself isn't that flawed, it's the models it's based on that are flawed.
Space is yellow.
To paraphrase:-
Space itself, in essence and quiddity is motion, and nothing else.
Common denominator, all things are in motion, spacetime is a motion model.
No part of the universe can be observed to be without motion.
As for the BBT, the model itself isn't that flawed, it's the models it's based on that are flawed.
Space has many definitions which means that many stated meanings call all be accurate even though they are meant in different observational references.
For the most part space means an empty volume.
Some examples:
A car parking space means an empty defined area where you can park your car, however when a car is parked there it's still referred to as a car parking space even though it's been filled.
In Astronomy space is the vacuum that exists between astronomical bodies, which can actually contain gases at a very low atmospheric level, meteors and other types of debris.
In more in-depth areas of science space can take on different values, for instance in Vacuum space there is low level amounts of energy present which can be measured and the space between sub-atom particles isn't necessarily an empty void either.
TAMallick,
Space isn't a Zero, it's actually more like a "Radix" point, whereby it can have a value, albeit it negligible to nothing.
For the most part space means an empty volume.
Some examples:
A car parking space means an empty defined area where you can park your car, however when a car is parked there it's still referred to as a car parking space even though it's been filled.
In Astronomy space is the vacuum that exists between astronomical bodies, which can actually contain gases at a very low atmospheric level, meteors and other types of debris.
In more in-depth areas of science space can take on different values, for instance in Vacuum space there is low level amounts of energy present which can be measured and the space between sub-atom particles isn't necessarily an empty void either.
TAMallick,
Space isn't a Zero, it's actually more like a "Radix" point, whereby it can have a value, albeit it negligible to nothing.
Nice observation, if something was not in motion, do you think we would recognize it? After all from our point of view it would still be moving relative to our position.
True but you have to have a model to work with until something better comes along. I also think it's flawed, but I don't have what it takes to convince anyone else and I won't be labeled a crackpot if I don't annoy anyone by trying.
Nothing can be without motion, the fact that you perceive it shows it is in motion. The only things that aren't in motion are the things we can't imagine (since even thought is motion).
I like looking at trees and thinking there are pure motion. As am I.
What do you think is flawed about it?
I have three problems with it,
1) Hubbles redshift is due to the fact that light from stars/galaxies does not hit the mirror in the telescope as parallel lines, they have a small angle of incidence which produces a focal line instead of a focal point, these focal lines produce the redshift that Hubble noticed even before they get refracted. If the light arrived in parallel lines on a 1 meter telescope, you'd effectively be sampling 1 meter of the star/galaxies, all you would see is white, the fact you see the edges of the object show there is an angle of incidence. The mirror is effectively the wrong shape for the viewed object.
2) In the current gravity model, the model fails as r approaches 0. It does not "predict' infinite mass it fails because the result is infinite. It actually fails way before r approaches 0, at the surface of the mass. (that's for another thread though)
3) What's the point? The universe began and then it'll end? What the hell is the point of me or anyone even attempting to add to humanity through any selfless act? To show how more human I am than you? No, I might as well be as selfish as possible, screw everyone else..... which is the current problem with mankind, there really isn't any point in adding to the library of the universe, no point in sending humanoid robots out into the depths of the universe, no point in doing anything other than making as much money as possible to satiate the desire for pleasure.
In my opinion, space is made of wave-functions. Wave-functions can become things like eigenstates. Eigenstates are possible values for momentum and position. When wave-functions are energized, they become photons of light. Empty eigenstates (eigenstates without energy in them) are just empty space. The vacumm states of empty space contains virtual particles. Virtual particles would be described by wave-functions, a necessary tool in quantum mechanics. I interpret that to mean that the wave-functions exist, and manifest the virtual particles of empty space.
I predict that at extremely high energies, the wave-functions of empty space become filled with energy and behave as light, as photons.
I predict that at extremely high energies, the wave-functions of empty space become filled with energy and behave as light, as photons.