What is your opinion on this? It is about empty space.

[Farid]

Hi everyone, 

I just want to know your opinions on this. 

LINK DELETED

 

Thank you.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Strange
Deleted link

[Curious layman]

I'll tell you before they do- you need to give a description of what it is. Links should only be used as further/more detailed information for those who are interested.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Curious layman

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

I will make that official: this is a discussion forum. The rules say that you must present your information here, not just link to something with no explanation. (As that page only has two sentences, why not post it here? This site does not exist to advertise your blog.)

 

[Farid]

Sorry about posting links. 

I would like your opinion on the following.

 

Empty space is space in which there is nothing. Size of nothing is zero, therefore it takes zero amount of space, which is why there can be no empty space.

– Farid Ameen

[swansont]

Compare and contrast that with

Size of nothing is zero, therefore it takes zero amount of space. An infinite amount of nothings still take up no space. Therefore there is an infinite amount of empty space. 

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, Farid said:

Empty space is space in which there is nothing. Size of nothing is zero, therefore it takes zero amount of space, which is why there can be no empty space.

The size of space is not determined by what is in it.

A cubic metre of space could contain just one atom. It would still be a cubic metre, not the size of the atom

Or it could contain zero atoms. It would then be a cubic metre with nothing in it. Empty space.

 

[StringJunky]

51 minutes ago, Strange said:

The size of space is not determined by what is in it.

A cubic metre of space could contain just one atom. It would still be a cubic metre, not the size of the atom

Or it could contain zero atoms. It would then be a cubic metre with nothing in it. Empty space.

 

 I agree with the premise of the OP. Space is volume and volume is a property of things. If there is no thing, there is no space and by that logic can have no size. I'm including no virtual particle sea or foam.

Edited July 8, 2019 by StringJunky

[mathematicalproiectionofme]

i think space is a energy form like matter or black holes ,

if black holes are colosal concentration of energy space is oposite.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 I agree with the premise of the OP. Space is volume and volume is a property of things. 

Volume is a property of things. But it is also a property of space.

The intergalactic medium has something like 10 particles per square meter. Those 10 particles are enough to keep that 1 metre cube intact? What if it was 2 particles? Or 1? Or none? At what point does that cubs metre drop to nothing?

 

9 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

i think space is a energy form like matter or black holes

That doesn't fit any scientific theory I am aware of. Do you have any evidence for that?

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Volume is a property of things. But it is also a property of space.

The intergalactic medium has something like 10 particles per square meter. Those 10 particles are enough to keep that 1 metre cube intact? What if it was 2 particles? Or 1? Or none? At what point does that cubs metre drop to nothing?

 

That doesn't fit any scientific theory I am aware of. Do you have any evidence for that?

If there was no quantum foam? Does the volume not belong to the quantum foam? 

Edited July 8, 2019 by StringJunky

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If there was no quantum foam? Does the volume not belong to the quantum foam? 

I don't see why. Surely 1 metre is 1 metre; it doesn't need quantum foam for it to be defined.

To be clear, measurements are abstract concepts. A coordinate system based on those measurements is an abstract concept. Volume is an abstract concept. We can define a coordinate system or a volume independently of what is in it.

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, Strange said:

Volume is a property of things. But it is also a property of space.

The intergalactic medium has something like 10 particles per square meter. Those 10 particles are enough to keep that 1 metre cube intact? What if it was 2 particles? Or 1? Or none? At what point does that cubs metre drop to nothing?

 

Right (cubic meter, though). If it's 10 particles, that's an average. Statistically you will have volumes where there are no particles in it (or you make your volume small enough so that this is the case)  

[Strange]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

cubic meter, though

Oops!

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Statistically you will have volumes where there are no particles in it

Good point

51 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If there was no quantum foam? Does the volume not belong to the quantum foam? 

And the quantum foam only exists because of the non-zero energy of the vacuum, so I guess your argument would really be that volume is created (or defined by?) energy.

But is independent of the amount of energy. Which seems odd. 

[mathematicalproiectionofme]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Volume is a property of things. But it is also a property of space.

The intergalactic medium has something like 10 particles per square meter. Those 10 particles are enough to keep that 1 metre cube intact? What if it was 2 particles? Or 1? Or none? At what point does that cubs metre drop to nothing?

 

That doesn't fit any scientific theory I am aware of. Do you have any evidence for that?

if my gypothese its right then space itself it black enegry and i dont see any experiment that contradicted that .

can you give example of  some "scientific theory".

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

if my gypothese its right then space itself it black enegry and i dont see any experiment that contradicted that .

Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?

But, one possible explanation is that "dark energy" (is that what you mean) can be explained by the intrinsic energy of space. That sounds a little bit like what you are trying to say. (There are problems with this, of course.)

14 minutes ago, mathematicalproiectionofme said:

can you give example of  some "scientific theory".

In general relativity, space and time are not energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

[mathematicalproiectionofme]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?

But, one possible explanation is that "dark energy" (is that what you mean) can be explained by the intrinsic energy of space. That sounds a little bit like what you are trying to say. (There are problems with this, of course.)

In general relativity, space and time are not energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

1.yes that hypothesis is based on gravity carier of interaction,GToR,QM, and i think its key to ToE.

2.i think its only our perspective of view about space time.

[MotleyNoumenon]

Not sure i should dip my toes in here but volume is a measure, not a property (although you can view it as a property, but this is nontheless extrinsic) and certainly not equatable with space. 

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MotleyNoumenon said:

Not sure i should dip my toes in here but volume is a measure, not a property (although you can view it as a property, but this is nontheless extrinsic) and certainly not equatable with space and why is it not equatable with  

 

What is your notion of space and why is it not equatable with volume?

Edited July 8, 2019 by StringJunky

[MotleyNoumenon]

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

What is your notion of space and why is it not equatable with volume?

Probably a wrong one, in the right eyes. However, in the case of giving a definition i suppose i think of space in the spacetime manifold sense. Which also shows my point: Volume is a measure of space, in the manifold sense. This is also intrinsic. 

As to the latter part, it should be evident that if volume is a measure of space then it is not space it self. 

I think i can see how you can equate them but its a bit artificial and forced imo, so i would rather hear your ''notion of space" and your arguments for why volume is a property (of what precisely? objects?), and why it equates with your notion of space. I suspect that your definition might be something along the lines of "volume is the space a thing occupies" (not to put words in your mouth! please, correct me), in which case i totally see your point of view. 

I think we had different initial contexts in mind, and thats why i disagreed.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, MotleyNoumenon said:

Probably a wrong one, in the right eyes. However, in the case of giving a definition i suppose i think of space in the spacetime manifold sense. Which also shows my point: Volume is a measure of space, in the manifold sense.

Agree completely.

I think the conflation of the two is easy because space (spacetime) is a rather abstract, and difficult to grasp, concept. Measures, such as length or volume, are the ways we experience it directly. (And gravity is the main way we experience its geometry, rather indirectly.)

 

[StringJunky]

39 minutes ago, MotleyNoumenon said:

Probably a wrong one, in the right eyes. However, in the case of giving a definition i suppose i think of space in the spacetime manifold sense. Which also shows my point: Volume is a measure of space, in the manifold sense. This is also intrinsic. 

As to the latter part, it should be evident that if volume is a measure of space then it is not space it self. 

I think i can see how you can equate them but its a bit artificial and forced imo, so i would rather hear your ''notion of space" and your arguments for why volume is a property (of what precisely? objects?), and why it equates with your notion of space. I suspect that your definition might be something along the lines of "volume is the space a thing occupies" (not to put words in your mouth! please, correct me), in which case i totally see your point of view. 

I think we had different initial contexts in mind, and thats why i disagreed.

Space is not a thing and neither is spacetime. To my mind, space and volume are interchangeable; one is talking about the same thing.

Edited July 8, 2019 by StringJunky

[Farid]

If empty space can exist then it means that nothing can have a size other than zero. 

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, Farid said:

If empty space can exist then it means that nothing can have a size other than zero. 

Can you fill in a few more details please? I'm not sure how you got from one to the other.

[Farid]

Quote

Can you fill in a few more details please? I'm not sure how you got from one to the other.

It is very simple. The volume of an object occupying space is the volume of the space it is occupying. If something is five feet long, the space it is occupying is also five feet long. If nothing occupies five feet of space, then the size of nothing is five feet also. 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Farid

[zapatos]

59 minutes ago, Farid said:

It is very simple. The volume of an object occupying space is the volume of the space it is occupying. If something is five feet long, the space it is occupying is also five feet long. If nothing occupies five feet of space, then the size of nothing is five feet also. 

You are speaking of "nothing" as if it were "something". i.e. ""nothing" occupies five feet of space". "Nothing" does not 'occupy'.

You can no more assign a size to "nothing" then you can assign a color to it.

Saying there is "nothing" in a particular five cubic feet of space is not the same as saying there is a "nothing" over there with a size of five cubic feet.