Space Ends

[chatlack]

None say there is a beginning. Big bang is only the beginning of present universe. No one says this is the first and one universe of all....

[BlackHole]

Is there any evidence for the physical existence of space? What about distance? I mean it could be that there is only energy and no space. So does the energy in the universe ever end (the CMBR i mean)?

 

Space is probably a mathematical construct. A set with an additional structure which we put on it.

[buzsaw]

Space can't end.

 

The simplest model of space is this.

 

Space is infinite in all directions.

Space is a true vacuum.

It has no inertia.

It has no electrical impedance.

It's temperature is absolute zero.

Somewhere in it' date=' is the center of mass of the universe.

Space cannot stretch, it cannot bend, it cannot expand, it cannot have properties.

And lastly, it is three dimensional.

 

In over two thousand years there hasn't been a simpler model.[/quote']

 

Hi Johnny. This logic is the kind of thing that eventually got me banned from EvC Forum after two years as an active member there, but I still have to agree that space by definition is boundless and has no properties capabable of expansion. Imo, everything, including gravity, alleged dark matter, particles, light, magnetism, --- every force and every substance exists within space and no force or substance is to be considered as a property of existing space/area/vacuum. From what I understand from expansionists, it comes down to space being geometric. Geometrics, as I understand by definition is measurement, and measurement must relate to things within space being measured. If all that the universe consited of were space, there would be nothing to measure, thus no geometrics. Geometrics would become relevant only when something was introduced into existing space.

 

Question for expansionists: If the universe consisted of nothing but space, what properties of that space would render it capable of expansion or of being bound, i.e. ending??

 

Space, according to bigbangists, as I understand the arguments began as a submicroscopic area which began to expand and has been expanding from the singularity of that to become what we know as the universe, i.e, everything that exists. What did that submicroscopic partical of space expand into? The answer I get from expansionists is that there was no space for it to expand into, since space cannot expand into space. This seems to be the logic problem our counterparts are faced with. They argue that there's no outside of for space to expand into, yet it allegedly is expanding. What are the properties of the alleged boundaries of space? If we were able to somehow travel to the edge of space where there is no outside of, what alleged property of space's boundary would we run into so as not to be able to travel out of the alleged boundary of space?

 

Yes, I am aware of the redshift expansionist argument, but there are all these other problems to deal with if you're going to go with the prevailing arguments of modern science, problems mainstream science seems to be sweeping under the cosmological rug.

 

I know this topic is about the end of space and there are other expansion threads, but I've tried to incorporate only that aspect of expansion relative to the thread topic. Being new here, I'm not sure how rigid the perameters are on this. My apologies if I've exceeded them.

[BlackHole]

The definition of space in physics is contextual. Various concepts used to try to define space have included:

 

1. The structure defined by the set of "spatial relationships" between objects.

 

2. A manifold defined by a coordinate system where an object can be located.

 

3. That which separates objects from one another.

 

4. The condition within the conceptual field of Existence that provides the 'ground' for any manifested form and as such it enables the movement and all physical dynamics.

 

In classical physics, space is a three-dimensional Euclidean space where any position can be described using three coordinates. In relativistic physics space and time are united to form a Minkowski space. Spacetime is modeled as a four-dimensional manifold.

 

I think there is no space, only energy. 'Space' is basically the quantum vacuum.

[buzsaw]

None say there is a beginning. Big bang is only the beginning of present universe. No one says this is the first and one universe of all....

 

There seems to be LTD 1 problems with this, but being that it would lead off topic, I'll save elaboration on that for it's own thread topic another time.

[buzsaw]

The definition of space in physics is contextual. Various concepts used to try to define space have included:

 

1. The structure defined by the set of "spatial relationships" between objects.

 

2. A manifold defined by a coordinate system where an object can be located.

 

3. That which separates objects from one another.

 

4. The condition within the conceptual field of Existence that provides the 'ground' for any manifested form and as such it enables the movement and all physical dynamics.

 

In classical physics' date=' space is a three-dimensional Euclidean space where any position can be described using three coordinates. In relativistic physics space and time are united to form a Minkowski space. Spacetime is modeled as a four-dimensional manifold.

 

I think there is no space, only energy. 'Space' is basically the quantum vacuum.[/quote']

 

1. I see that all four of your points involve that which exists within space in your attempt to define space.

 

2. Would you agree that all that exists, including that which generates energy occupies area? Doesn't quantum vacuum translate into street terms, quantity of vacuum/area? If so, then wouldn't space exist as a unique property of the universe, i.e. unbounded area, a portion of which is occupied by everything else existing in the universe?

 

3. The question appears yet unanswered: if the universe consisted of nothing but space, what properties of space/vacuum/area would render it capable of expansion or of being bound so as for space to end?

[BlackHole]

1. I see that all four of your points involve that which exists within space in your attempt to define space.

 

2. Would you agree that all that exists' date=' including that which generates energy occupies area? Doesn't [i']quantum vacuum[/i] translate into street terms, quantity of vacuum/area? If so, then wouldn't space exist as a unique property of the universe, i.e. unbounded area, a portion of which is occupied by everything else existing in the universe?

 

3. The question appears yet unanswered: if the universe consisted of nothing but space, what properties of space/vacuum/area would render it capable of expansion or of being bound so as for space to end?

 

There is a dilemma. General relativity and QM have two different mathematical languages for 'space'.

 

Every physical entity occupies area and position. Space is a collection of positions. Therefore one can deduce that if there are no physical entities, there is no space and nothing can move. The physical entities, which are absolute, create 'space'.

 

Relative motion and position are abstract: they don't exist physically. The relative always depends on the absolute.

[adhocboy]

all is form. that is the basic tenet of relativity. structure is not a property of substance; structure is all that there is. substance is the illusion.

 

space, then, is structure and not infinite. maybe really frick'n big, but not infinite.

[buzsaw]

There is a dilemma. General relativity and QM have two different mathematical languages for 'space'.

 

Every physical entity occupies area and position. Space is a collection of positions. Therefore one can deduce that if there are no physical entities' date=' there is no space and nothing can move. The physical entities, which are absolute, create 'space'.

 

Relative motion and position are abstract: they don't exist physically. The relative always depends on the absolute.[/quote']

 

So then in the cosmos, what do you call the area between physical entities?

[BlackHole]

So then in the cosmos, what do you call the area between physical entities?

 

I think that if there is no physical space, existing seperately from absolute mass-energy, then there is no area too. Area is a quantity expressing the size of a region of space. Size is also abstract (i.e not physical).

 

Btw the fact that Einstein's equations allow the possibility of time dilation & time travel is already a contradiction because time is invariant by definition. Clocks measure invariant time intervals. There is no time dimension. If there were, there would be no motion. The clocks slow down not because time dilates but because of conservation of energy at work.

 

For conclusion: The relative is abstract and depends on the absolute. If it wasn't abstract, nothing could move.

[buzsaw]

I think that if there is no physical space' date=' existing seperately from absolute mass-energy, then there is no area too. Area is a quantity expressing the size of a region of space. Size is also abstract (i.e not physical).

 

For conclusion: The relative is abstract and depends on the absolute. If it wasn't abstract, nothing could move.[/quote']

 

You're confusing me. We know by observation that space/area exists between things. How then is it that you conclude that there is no area separate from absolute mass-energy? To me, the layman, this appears to be totally illogical.

[BlackHole]

You're confusing me. We know by observation that space/area exists between things. How then is it that you conclude that there is no area separate from absolute mass-energy? To me, the layman, this appears to be totally illogical.

 

Space exists but it's abstract. One cannot say that space exists seperately from matter which is absolute. Also time cannot dilate because it is invariant by definition.

[buzsaw]

Space exists but it's abstract. One cannot say that space exists seperately from matter which is absolute. Also time cannot dilate because it is invariant by definition.

 

OK.

1. Space exists.

It exists in the universe as an abstract, meaning, according to my dictionary, that it's thought of apart from particular substances, or as you say, from the absolute.

 

2. If abstract space exists apart from the absolute, how then can you say that it cannot exist separate from matter which is absolute.

 

True or false: The existing abstract space between objects is not part and parcel of the absolute objects existing around it.

[BlackHole]

True or false: The existing abstract space between objects is not[/i'] part and parcel of the absolute objects existing around it.

 

I think that's false. In nature there is only matter and energy which are absolute. Space is abstract and depends on the absolute.

 

Quantum mechanics, which i believe is one of the most empirical theories (except electromagnetism), tells us that there is no physical space, only particles and their interactions. Space is abstract. General relativity says otherwise. Therefore i believe that one theory must be wrong here.

[Edisonian]

How and where does it end???

 

SPACE ENDS

 

 

Space ends' date=' space does not go on forever and ever it ends.

The difference between space ending or not ending is if space does not end then space does not have a shape but once you understand that space ends then space can take a shape and that shape can move from one shape to another shape.

 

Yes space ends and moves.[/quote']

[buzsaw]

I think that's false. In nature there is only matter and energy which are absolute. Space is abstract and depends on the absolute.

 

Quantum mechanics' date=' which i believe is one of the most empirical theories (except electromagnetism), tells us that there is no physical space, only particles and their interactions. Space is abstract. General relativity says otherwise. Therefore i believe that one theory must be wrong here.[/quote']

 

What can be more empirical than visual observation? Visually, it is logically clear that the abstract space between absolute objects is not part and parcel of those objects. Has mainstream science's quantum mechanics moved beyond any consideration to logic?

[buzsaw]

How and where does it end???

 

Hi Edisonian. We're in this dialog as to whether space (abstract) exists apart from matter (absolute.) I suppose we've got to settle that matter before your question can be answered. I don't see how the heck it can be bounded, i.e. end. As I see it, mainstream science bigbangists must needs have it somehow end in order to accomodate the BB, and the only way they can do that is to attach space to matter. After all, BB says the whole universe, space, matter and all expanded from a teeny submicroscopic singularity area. I know Rich Gore of National Geographic a couple of decades ago called this singularity an area of space billions of times smaller than the proton of an atom. I believe the name of the article was "The Once And Forever Universe" by him back in the 80's, if I recall. I saved the article but have missplaced it. I do remember those terms he used though.

[Guest RoubraB]

General Relativity states that if an object is observerved to be consumed by a black hole then as it approaches the event horizon and the speed of light it will appear to slow down to the observer and as far as he/she is concerned it will never ever actually drop into the black hole.

 

Could the same not be true for the edge of the universe: it is moving so fast that an event horizon is created which defines the end of our universe.

 

The definition of universe is 'All space and it's contents' and time is a function of space or whatever it is, so our universe is just the space that we can 'see' over time and everything outside it is nothing in terms of the 4D stuff that we are able to cogitate.

 

maybe!

[dna mauro]

i think that "space", is a part of something bigger(like starsystems are part of galaxy and galaxies part of space).

but if space still ends, what is behind that? or it goes on and on and on......whitout end.

 

humans will newer knew that,our planet will be destroied first. its like what was first:egg or chicken? or What is behind or inside black hole?

[rajiv]

first of all define the space.

what is space?

whatever is there is in space.

if space ends somewhere there would be more space

so space dont ends.

[thetheworks]

thats beautiful man

[buzsaw]

first of all define the space.

what is space?

whatever is there is in space.

if space ends somewhere there would be more space

so space dont ends.

 

Imo' date=' space is absolute nothing but existing boundless area in the universe in which everything in the universe exists. Space being boundless then makes the universe boundless. This is why I believe that space does not expand or end. It is boundless. I have debated on this in another forum with expansionists. In these debates I have focused on the definition of space, what it is and what it is not. My counterparts, for the most part end up with the only property of space being geometrics and they go about to show how via QM and light redshift space geometrics can be shown do do stuff like expand. This is my understanding of how their argument works. They go from this to argue that space is not boundless and ends.

 

My counter to that is that geometrics are relative to [i']things in space[/i] and not space perse. For example, if the universe were nothing but space, there would be no geometrics and no QM. There would be nothing to relate to for measurement. Not until something is introduced into space do geometrics and QM become relevant, imo. Hopefully some folks apprised on QM and space cosmology will have comments in response to this.

[Draco]

If like some of you are saying that space is expanding then it has a shape....but then the problem is where is it expanding into???????????? nothingness.well nothingness is actually something, nothing being the decphered way of saying no colour, texture, physical being etc etc how is this so therefore nothing is something and the universe is therefore not expanding as it mentioned.it is just a constant into something else ahhh ahhh ahhhh

[Nicholas]

What if the shape of space is a hypersphere?

Where the universe is actually the surface of a hypersphere?

If the universe is unbounded then space doesn't have to end.

I know time doesn't.

 

Why doesn't time end?

If it did energy would end; no energy without time.

So time ending would violate the conservation of energy.

Energy can't disappeare. So time continues.

 

As Hawking said: GR predicts its own downfall by predicting

singularities.

 

And singularities are ends in time (and space).

No singularities!!!

[buzsaw]

There is a dilemma. General relativity and QM have two different mathematical languages for 'space'.

 

Every physical entity occupies area and position. Space is a collection of positions. Therefore one can deduce that if there are no physical entities' date=' there is no space and nothing can move. The physical entities, which are absolute, create 'space'.

 

Relative motion and position are abstract: they don't exist physically. The relative always depends on the absolute.[/quote']

 

1. What property of space is there which makes it possible for it to be created?

 

2. If everything in the universe could be suddenly eliminated, what propertay of space would make it possible for all the space, which was once occupied by things in the universe, to be eliminated?

 

3. What we observe on earth is that if you remove things from the space that those things occupied, the space remains. For example, if I remove the contents of my house, the space in it remains. Furthermore, if it were possible to eliminate absolute everything from my house, including all elements and rays, the space would remain. There is no property of space that I am aware of that enables anything to cause it to be elimated according to what is observed. QM seems, sometimes, to be that mysterious illogical mechanism devised by science so as to promote theories of science which science has a vested interest in promoting, imo.