Space is the ultimate antecedent

[gwb]

Please allow me to toss out a simple assertion as I endeavour to make sense of life, reality and the universe.

My first assertion is simply that space is the ultimate antecedent simply because it can exist without anything in it but nothing can exist without space. Space can exist without neutrons, photons, protons, atoms and molecules, though these particles cannot exist without space. Space can exist without stars, planets, galaxies and black holes, though these things cannot exist without space. Space can exist without black energy, black matter, strings, deities or anything else we humans can imagine, though none of these things can exist without space. Space can also exist without the fundamental interactions - the nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions, though these interactions cannot exist without space. Space can also exist without a Big Bang, though a Big Bang cannot happen without space. Thus, space is the original antecedent, the ultimate antecedent, for it can exist with absolutely nothing in it, though nothing can exist without space. It is the stage upon which everything else exists and operates.

So, am I out to lunch?

[StringJunky]

Yes.   Space is volume and is a property things, Length, width and height do not exist on their own. A vacuum is not nothing because it has virtual particles in it. A vacuum is not space itself, it has space/volume. The emptiest volume you can have is a vacuum.

Edited March 26, 2018 by StringJunky

[Area54]

If I understand current theory correctly - which is not a necessarily the case - space was created by the Big Bang and so did not precede it.

Alternatively - and I'm on stronger ground here - there is no such thing space, but rather something called spacetime. If so, that would also contradict your thesis.

I don't know if you are out to lunch, but I think you may at least have ordered in a sandwich.

[michel123456]

IIRC late Ilya Prigogine (Chemistry Nobel prize 1977) had the conviction that Time was the ultimate antecedent. Because without Time, the word "exist" has no meaning.

[studiot]

Well here is a mathematical thought about it.

 

One way to construct the integers is as follows

Axiom 1

There exists (mathematically) an integer (we call 0) that is not the successor of any integer.

Axiom 2

Every integer has exactly one successor.

 

Noting that if B is the successor of A then A is the antecedent of B,

Zero is the ultimate antecedent and it does not even require space to exist in.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

gwb -

What is the science we're discussing here?

 

[gwb]

swansont

I think I am talking about physics. I certainly hope that I am talking about physics, though basic physics. I am not a physicist which I assume is obvious and I am not a scientist. So I am essentially a average pedestrian out on the street with an interest in understanding how things work. I do appreciate the million and one things that science has done to improve the human experience and if I have a better understanding of science and cosmology, I might be able to hold my own against non science views and proponents. And then maybe one more person might appreciate the importance of science even if we struggle to understand some of the basic tenets.

On ‎25‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 9:38 PM, StringJunky said:

Yes.   Space is volume and is a property things, Length, width and height do not exist on their own. A vacuum is not nothing because it has virtual particles in it. A vacuum is not space itself, it has space/volume. The emptiest volume you can have is a vacuum.

 

On ‎25‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 10:23 PM, Area54 said:

If I understand current theory correctly - which is not a necessarily the case - space was created by the Big Bang and so did not precede it.

this is my problem, because it seems to me that a Big Bang needs space, that even a singularity of incomprehensible density still requires space to precede. I can see where the gravitational field of a singularity could distort space, but space would still exist around the singularity. 

On ‎26‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 9:04 AM, studiot said:

Zero is the ultimate antecedent and it does not even require space to exist in.

zero though is a concept and a descriptor is it not? not a thing that actually exists on its own.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, gwb said:

this is my problem, because it seems to me that a Big Bang needs space, that even a singularity of incomprehensible density still requires space to precede. I can see where the gravitational field of a singularity could distort space, but space would still exist around the singularity. 

The space came with the evolution of the universe.

[gwb]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The space came with the evolution of the universe.

are we talking about space as volume (which could be independent of the universe) or are we talking about space as the medium in which the universe exists and evolves?

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, gwb said:

are we talking about space as volume (which could be independent of the universe) or are we talking about space as the medium in which the universe exists and evolves?

 

The universe is everything that exists, by definition. It does not exist in another space/volume. Whatever space you are thinking about is part of the universe and it emerged and evolved with it 

[gwb]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The universe is everything that exists, by definition. It does not exist in another space/volume. Whatever space you are thinking about is part of the universe and it emerged and evolved with it 

then space came in to be with the Big Bang, and all matter and energy existed within the singularity as I understand it, yet, what existed beyond the singularity from which the universe came to be? the problem is that the more I think about and the more I puzzle over it, the more the Big Bang looks like a black hole in reverse. instead of all matter and energy being drawn into the singularity, it is expanding out from the singularity. yes, no, nobody knows, everybody knows but me?

[beecee]

59 minutes ago, gwb said:

this is my problem, because it seems to me that a Big Bang needs space, that even a singularity of incomprehensible density still requires space to precede. I can see where the gravitational field of a singularity could distort space, but space would still exist around the singularity. 

The Singularity [where our current laws and GR beak down] was a singularity "OF" space and time, as distinct from a singularity "IN" space and time as we know it. 

While it is reasonable to ask what  did that singularity exist in? The best I would answer is space and time, in a unknown form, and probably the more correct answer, is as yet we do not know. Does "nothing" exist? What is nothing? ...Are two other probably, and far more philosophical questions that may then arise.

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, gwb said:

swansont

I think I am talking about physics. I certainly hope that I am talking about physics, though basic physics.

!

Moderator Note

I don't see any physics in your post. It is, as you say, an assertion. It is not testable, and you have no model for it. It makes no formal reference to any other models/laws/theories.

 

 

[beecee]

On 3/28/2018 at 11:16 AM, gwb said:

.this is my problem, because it seems to me that a Big Bang needs space, that even a singularity of incomprehensible density still requires space to precede. I can see where the gravitational field of a singularity could distort space, but space would still exist around the singularity. 

It was a singularity "OF" spacetime, [as we know it] as distinct from a singularity "IN" spacetime.

[Strange]

On 28/03/2018 at 2:47 AM, gwb said:

are we talking about space as volume (which could be independent of the universe) or are we talking about space as the medium in which the universe exists and evolves?

Neither.

Space is the universe. 

It may be finite or infinite, either way there is no boundary or edge, and nothing outside. 

All of that space would have been in the singularity - although there was probably no such thing. 

[koti]

On 28.03.2018 at 3:03 AM, gwb said:

...what existed beyond the singularity from which the universe came to be?

Mathematically and logically this question is null as studiot and strange pointed out. Maybe this silly thought experiment will enable you to get a different perspective:

Imagine a point in time in the past when you have not yet been born. It doesn’t make any sense to discuss the existence of gwb (you) at that point. It doesn’t make sense to have any assertions or conclusions or anything in regard to the person you are at that point in time. Now try to apply the same line of thoughg to your question „what existed beyond the singularity” There is simply no beyond. I know its hard to imagine because when you imagine soemthing its always a thing. I don’t think anyone can picture this properly in their brain but the analogy I gave you and the previous explanations by studiot and strange shhould get you on track.

[LaurieAG]

On 28/03/2018 at 10:47 AM, gwb said:

are we talking about space as volume (which could be independent of the universe) or are we talking about space as the medium in which the universe exists and evolves?

Our bb models based on gravity can't measure anything outside the boundary of the sphere we measure it in. That doesn't actually mean that there is nothing there, it's just that with our current physics we just don't really know anything about it and can't measure it so we say that it doesn't exist and create something that we can't define under the same physics but can measure to explain our ignorance. After all, it's much easier to search for eternity for something that doesn't exist than to actually hypothesise something that we cannot measure.

One thing we do know is that the ratio's of our total calculated universal matter divided by our (visible matter times 2), in both the Planck and WMAP data and under the LambdaCDM model, comes out to Pi +/- 1.1% but it's so much easier to call this numerology, stick our heads in the sand and refuse to explain it, because we know better (when we don't). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology#To_describe_questionable_concepts_based_on_possibly_coincidental_numerical_patterns

There have been a few examples of numerology that have led to theories that transformed society: see the mention of Kirchhoff and Balmer in Good (1962, p. 316) ... and one can well include Kepler on account of his third law. It would be fair enough to say that numerology was the origin of the theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, gravitation.... So I intend no disparagement when I describe a formula as numerological.

When a numerological formula is proposed, then we may ask whether it is correct. ... I think an appropriate definition of correctness is that the formula has a good explanation, in a Platonic sense, that is, the explanation could be based on a good theory that is not yet known but ‘exists’ in the universe of possible reasonable ideas.

— I. J. Good^[17]

 

[swansont]

On 4/7/2018 at 5:32 AM, interested said:

Can space exist without virtual particles. Are virtual particles and space dependent on each other. Is the expansion of space driven by virtual particles, or does space expand allowing more virtual particles to come into existence.

Edit which came first virtual particles or space. (Chicken and egg scenario) Has space and virtual particles evolved something else. an earlier universe than the big bang perhaps

Could there be dimensions where space time does not exist.

!

Moderator Note

These are not questions being addressed to the OP. It is hijacking. STOP IT.

POST YOUR QUESTIONS IN A NEW THREAD.

 

Hijack discussion has been split off to the trash

 

[Airbrush]

Since we now refer to space as "space-time" it seems that our time began with the big bang.   So before the big bang there was no space-time, rather there was only "space"?  "Space-time" is something that begins with the creation of matter/energy?

Edited April 8, 2018 by Airbrush

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Since we now refer to space as "space-time" it seems that our time began with the big bang.   So before the big bang there was no space-time, rather there was only "space"?  "Space-time" is something that begins with the creation of matter/energy?

The BB was an evolution of space and time, as we know them. The spacetime concept was born with Einstein and GR, and formerly recognised by his teacher Hermann Minkowski and summed up as follows....

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

Herman Minkowski

On 3/26/2018 at 12:27 PM, gwb said:

Space can also exist without the fundamental interactions - the nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions, though these interactions cannot exist without space.

The following answer by Sten Odenwald may help make some sense in what I believe are some of your mistaken ideas.

Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?

"No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation".

Return to the Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers page.

All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program.

from....https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

NB: The rather confusing/contradicting  bit I highlighted "can and do not" is just that, and an apparent typographical error. This was confirmed by Sten Odenwald in an E-Mail when I asked for clarification on that particular question.

The answer as it should be......

"No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time  do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation".

 

[Airbrush]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 12:31 PM, beecee said:

... space and space-time DO NOT EXIST apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field"

Very interesting and thanks for providing this.  So before the big bang there was no space or space-time.  So what's the difference between "space" and space-time"?  That is why I thought that before matter/energy happened, there was only space, NOT space-time.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Very interesting and thanks for providing this.  So before the big bang there was no space or space-time.  So what's the difference between "space" and space-time"?  That is why I thought that before matter/energy happened, there was only space, NOT space-time.

Space is part of space-time, not something separate. 

“Before the Big Bang” doesn’t really mean anything. It is a bit like asking what is north of the North Pole. 

A better question might be: what happened instead of the singularity predicted by GR?

[beecee]

17 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Very interesting and thanks for providing this.  So before the big bang there was no space or space-time.  So what's the difference between "space" and space-time"?  That is why I thought that before matter/energy happened, there was only space, NOT space-time.

I always use the terminology spacetime, and find much logic in the Minkowski quote.

I also always refer to any reference of the  evolution of spacetime at the BB, as spacetime as we know it, and to differentiate from before the BB, if that has any real meaning at all,  and whether it is the nothing from whence the BB arose, and depending on what one defines as nothing.

I believe that Strange's question re "what happened instead of the singularity predicted by GR?" is more appropriate.

[Airbrush]

20 hours ago, beecee said:

"what happened instead of the singularity predicted by GR?" is more appropriate.

Instead of the singularity, the big bang expanded out of a super-dense region of undeterminable size.  What was there before the big bang?  There was either a pre-existing universe or not.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Airbrush

[Mordred]

We don't know, the physics we understand breaks down at the singularity conditions. The main competing models are cyclic, bounce or from nothing universes. Some models such as the former two suggest we arise from other former universes. The last shows the possibility of this being an original universe.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Mordred