What is Space made of?

[Taingorz]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

More nonsense. Science seeks explanations of what we observe through observations and experiments. It's wrong to say that it has nothing to do with finding truth, rather seeking truth per se, is not its objective, if this truth or reality actually even exists.

Science is based on empirical evidence: Religion is based on faith. Understand? One would then ask why you use and depend on science every single day of your life if it is based on not understanding. I mean saying that is not just circular, it is inane and obtuse to boot.  You my friend would still be swinging in the trees if it wasn't for science and the scientific methodology.

Nope , you are now confusing 'science' and 'technology". Despite popular opinion, the two have nearly nothing to do with each other.

And sometimes , 'technology' helps 'science' a bit forward. But not too much. I really think that in a lot of instances 'science' 

has hindered progress for technology. And now we are at it,  sometimes 'science' stops progress in 'science' which

is the case with the the relativity theories.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Taingorz

[taeto]

3 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

Nope , you are now confusing 'science' and 'technology". Despite popular opinion, the two have nearly nothing to do with each other.

And sometimes , 'technology' helps 'science' a bit forward. But not too much. I really think that in a lot of instances 'science' 

has hindered progress for technology. And now we are at it,  sometimes 'science' stops progress in 'science' which

is the case with the the relativity theories.

But then to you, technology would mean how better to swing between the tree branches, while to the rest of us, science means to ascertain what is out there and how to adapt the environment to suit our lives.  

[beecee]

21 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

With all due respect, but you are not saying anything here. You are just saying there has been done things that proof it.

No wrong again. I'm saying that near everything you claim and say is totally bereft of evidence and nothing but unsupported rhetoric and just as obviously driven by some anti science agenda. Oh, and once again to highlight another error or gap in your knowledge or more accurately the lack thereof, science is not about "proof" it is about the best explanation at any particular time, and as observations are extended, may be modified, changed or completely dropped, based on those new improved observations.

Quote

Bit nothing concrete at all. And e.g. gravitational lensing can be very easily explained by classical physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

This effect is known as gravitational lensing, and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. (Classical physics also predicts the bending of light, but only half that predicted by general relativity.)

17 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

Nope , you are now confusing 'science' and 'technology". Despite popular opinion, the two have nearly nothing to do with each other.

And sometimes , 'technology' helps 'science' a bit forward. But not too much. I really think that in a lot of instances 'science' 

Nothing to do with each other??  Again empty rhetoric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology

Quote

 

has hindered progress for technology. And now we are at it,  sometimes 'science' stops progress in 'science' which

is the case with the the relativity theories.

 

More nonsense. But hey! the ball's in your court. Please show me evidence about science hindering progress, and of course evidence invalidating all the overwhelming evidence that supports relativity both SR and GR. I'm a patient man with time at my disposal this morning.

Edited August 4, 2018 by beecee

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

Nope , you are now confusing 'science' and 'technology". Despite popular opinion, the two have nearly nothing to do with each other.

Technology is applied science a lot of the time, particularly these days..

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

Nope , you are now confusing 'science' and 'technology". Despite popular opinion, the two have nearly nothing to do with each other.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/page/scienceandtech/science-and-technology

Science and Technology

Science encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, and technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. Oxford Referenceprovides more than 210,000 concise definitions and in-depth, specialist encyclopedic entries on the wide range of subjects within these broad disciplines.

Our coverage comprises authoritative, highly accessible information on the very latest terminology, concepts, theories, techniques, people, and organizations relating to all areas of science and technology—from astronomy, engineering, physics, computer science, and mathematics, to life and earth sciences, chemistry, environmental science, biology, and psychology. Written by trusted experts for researchers at every level, entries are complemented by illustrative line drawings, equations, and charts wherever useful.

[Itoero]

17 hours ago, Taingorz said:

 

Nevermind. But I do agree 'science' is full of things that is not understood. Not a good state of affairs now is it?

That's a very normal state of affairs. Science constantly tries to solve the things which are 'not understood'.

The scientific knowledge grows all the time. There are atm many 'theories' concerning space and time., future will tell which are correct and which are  not.  The incorrect ones will disappear out the world of science and the correct ones may form new scientific theories. This is imo the beauty of science. It a  self sustaining process…..so science remains scientific.

But this thread is about  Space..

The Holographic basically states our 3D world (incl space)arises from 2D information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle  https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html  

It might look like a wild idea of a crazy scientist but it's not. A quote of Sherlock Holms explains how you should interpret the holographic principle and how it was formed.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Hiroshi Ooguri 's quantumgravity model(space time is built by entanglement) leans on the holographic principle. https://www.ipmu.jp/en/node/2174

Leonard Susskind created a model where he shows entanglement hooks space together.https://youtu.be/lH-3bFqtJjg                                                                                                        These models fit with the theory that states the Big Bang model implies a high degree of entanglement.(everything is entangled)https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1584

this concerns Holographic Entanglement Entropy.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.01287.pdf

 What do you think of this? It seems a matter of time before there is scientific evidence for the holographic principle.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Itoero

[Strange]

On 04/08/2018 at 12:16 PM, Taingorz said:

This seems to be an impossibility to me.

Many things that "seem" to be impossible (or possible) turn out not to be. That is why science uses objective measurements rather than personal opinions.

On 04/08/2018 at 1:40 PM, Taingorz said:

And experiments agree? That remains to be seen then.Because it is never about the experiments but about the interpretation of the experiments of course

Your "of course" is completely mistaken.

If the mathematical model predicts result X and we get result X (plus or minus some error bars) then that is consistent with the theory. That's all science says.

On 04/08/2018 at 1:40 PM, Taingorz said:

Just a little logical thinking can show space can not curve.

Nonsense

On 04/08/2018 at 10:43 PM, Taingorz said:

But I do agree 'science' is full of things that is not understood. Not a good state of affairs now is it?

It is a fantastic state of affairs. That is what gives us the opportunity to develop new theories and/or new tests fr existing theories (to try and find the holes in them).

The world would be very boring if we knew all the answers.

[quiet]

Matter occupies a very small proportion of the space of the universe. The largest proportion is there, without containing matter.

Strong interaction and weak interaction operate where there is matter. Where there is none, the electromagnetic field and gravitation operate.

Maxwell tried unsuccessfully to formulate an electromagnetic theory of gravity. Other scientists tried, also unsuccessfully. If any of these attempts had been successful, today we would say that the largest proportion of the universe's space is occupied by electromagnetic field.

In the standard model, everything except gravitation derives from the same basic scheme. There are attempts to incorporate gravitation to the standard model. The day that is achieved, we will affirm that all the space of the universe is occupied by the phenomena described in the standard model.

This brief review allows us to understand that before asking what the space is made of, we must ask when the theory of everything will be achieved and well confirmed.

[Markus Hanke]

6 hours ago, quiet said:

Maxwell tried unsuccessfully to formulate an electromagnetic theory of gravity

He was unsuccessful because gravity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon. His approach was basically upside down.

6 hours ago, quiet said:

Other scientists tried, also unsuccessfully.

This is not entirely true. It is in fact possible to combine GR and EM into a single, overarching model, called Kaluza-Klein gravity. The problem with this is that it can’t be done in 4 dimensions, and also that it requires extra fields for which there is no evidence in the real world.

[quiet]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

He was unsuccessful because gravity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon. His approach was basically upside down.

This is not entirely true. It is in fact possible to combine GR and EM into a single, overarching model, called Kaluza-Klein gravity. The problem with this is that it can’t be done in 4 dimensions, and also that it requires extra fields for which there is no evidence in the real world.

Hi Markus. If you read my post carefully, you can see that I not say unification theory in general. Maxwell and other scientists have not achieve an electromagnetic theory of gravitation. Kaluza and Klein have formulated a 5-dimensional unification theory. Electromagnetic theory of gravitation means that a purely EM phenomenon produces gravitation.

Note that the key of my post is to relate the nature of space with the theory of everything, regardless of wich TOE could be finally succesful.

---------

Another question. Believe you that if gravity isn't intantaneous, this is if it acts with finite velocity, the universe must be a chaos?

The set of notices I know cotains only one phenomenon that can act instantaneosuly. That phenomenon is the link between the two charges when the mutual interaction have a capacitive nature. This link is purely electromagnetic.

Edited September 16, 2018 by quiet

[studiot]

1 hour ago, quiet said:

Hi Markus. If you read my post carefully, you can see that I not say unification theory in general. Maxwell and other scientists have not achieve an electromagnetic theory of gravitation. Kaluza and Klein have formulated a 5-dimensional unification theory. Electromagnetic theory of gravitation means that a purely EM phenomenon produces gravitation.

Note that the key of my post is to relate the nature of space with the theory of everything, regardless of wich TOE could be finally succesful.

---------

Another question. Believe you that if gravity isn't intantaneous, this is if it acts with finite velocity, the universe must be a chaos?

The set of notices I know cotains only one phenomenon that can act instantaneosuly. That phenomenon is the link between the two charges when the mutual interaction have a capacitive nature. This link is purely electromagnetic.

Can you provide references for this idea?

 

Maxwell reviewed the attempts by many others to explain gravity and found them all wanting., for example he said of the separate theories of Le Sage, Challis, Kelvin:_

Quote

Maxwell

All these theories require the expenditure of work.According to them we must regard the processes of Nature, not as illustrations of the great principle of Conservation of Energy, but as instances in which, by a nice (nice here means fine or subtle) adjustment of powerful agencies not subject to this principle an apparent Conservation of Energy is maintained. Hence we are forced to conclude that the explanation of gravitation is not by these hypotheses.

He did show that

Quote

Maxwell

There exists in an electrical field a tension along the tubes of force and a pressure at right angles to them. Such a set of stresses, with signs reversed, would explain the attraction between material bodies.

In other words he showed the form of what we now call gravitational potential is the same as that of what we now call electrical potential.

He also rejected what was known as 'the electrical theory', whereby it was proposed that the force of attraction between unit charges of opposite sign was/is marginally greater than the force of repulsion between unit charges of the same sign which was offered to account for gravity.

 

As the greatest physicist of his age he was busy with many thigs which is probably why he never had time to get round to relativity. That came half a century later with Einstein. (he died in 1879)

[quiet]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Can you provide references for this idea?

Hi, studiot. Thank you very much for the references regarding Maxwell and gravitation. You have focused on several details that interest me a lot.
---------
Regarding the instantaneity of the capacitive interaction I have no bibliographical reference. I have only learned that the capacitive force is independent of the distance between charges (we will say between plates when the charges are lodged in metal sheets). In the case of a flat and parallel plate capacitor, the demonstration is an end-of-chapter exercise in textbooks.

Can an interaction independent of distance depend on time? Example. At the ends of an insulating tube we place flat metal plates, without adhesive or anything else that fixes them materially to the tube. Then we take a battery and connect it to the plates. The capacitive force appears and the plates seal the tube. Now we can fill the tube with gas, until it reaches the pressure that the plates can withstand. Then we touch the positive plate with a negative charge of the same absolute value. What will happen ?

In the positive plate, the capacitive force disappears at the same instant of neutralization. When does it disappear on the other plate?

If we suppose that it disappears some time later, then the tube will not move, although there is a jet of gas coming from the end where the neutralization was carried out. That violates all the laws of physics. On the other hand, if at both ends the force disappears at the same instant, a stream of gas comes out from each end of the tube. The effects of both jets are the same and opposite. The tube remains still, without violating the physical laws.

The tube can be as long as we want, because the capacitive force is independent of the distance. So, if the interaction between plates operated with finite speed, for example equal to C, the violation could last too long to ignore it, or end up proposing a kind of principle of capacitive uncertainty, which allows violating laws for times as large as we want.

Regarding that, I do not have a bibliographical reference available. I have learned it in my student days and the notes, taken in class, only God knows where they are.

[studiot]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.

I was only asking about Maxwell and not referring to your magic instantaneous capacitor at all.

That would be off topic here.

Theories of gravitation are probably also off topic since the thread was about 'what is space?'

 

I'm sure you have interesting questions to ask.

Please ask in these in their own thread (one topic per thread) though by all means refer to another thread and say "this was inspired by" and refer to another thread.

[quiet]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

That would be off topic here.

It's true, another thread would be the best. Regarding the rest, now I notice that the question did not exist and, then, what I wrote is useless. I beg your pardon.

[Markus Hanke]

18 hours ago, quiet said:

Electromagnetic theory of gravitation means that a purely EM phenomenon produces gravitation.

No such theory is possible, because EM dynamics are linear, whereas gravitation is not. They are fundamentally of a different nature. 

18 hours ago, quiet said:

Believe you that if gravity isn't intantaneous, this is if it acts with finite velocity, the universe must be a chaos?

It depends what you mean by “chaos”. GR Gravity is completely deterministic, since it is a purely classical theory, but it is not always indefinitely predictable. Since gravity is highly non-linear, under certain circumstances you get chaotic systems - here “chaotic” is used in the sense that the evolution of such systems is highly sensitive to initial conditions. Even tiny perturbations of the initial conditions can have large consequences in long-term evolution of the system. This is a well known phenomenon, which is found in many other areas of physics as well.

19 hours ago, quiet said:

That phenomenon is the link between the two charges when the mutual interaction have a capacitive nature. This link is purely electromagnetic.

I don’t understand what you mean by this...?
No instantaneous actions at a distance can occur in nature. You can only have non-local correlations, which is a different thing, because that does not allow for the exchange of information. Electromagnetism is completely local, there are no non-local interactions.

[quiet]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

No such theory is possible [...]

Hello Markus. Your post has been beautifully didactic and has helped to refine my ideas. I thank you enthusiastically.

[Itoero]

Leonard Susskind has this theory that Entanglement hooks space together. Is this property of entanglement what's called holographic entanglement entropy? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.01287.pdf

 

[Romeo22]

Ten pages and no sensible answer to what space is... 

In QT, space is a pre-determined entity in the postulates of QT. And any form of energy (matter, temperature, time, etc.) can never cause any disturbances on space -- in a nutshell space has different units to the fundamental units this inhibits any and allall forms of interaction.

GR on the other hand does not share this belief. Stating that energy(time) and space can cause interact with each other and hence space disturbs matter and vice verca

Obviously either QT or GR is wrong about what space can or cant interact with energy.

As to what space is, why it has the dimensions it has, whats it prime cause... is beyond the standard model and only speculative ideas can be suggested.

For now the true debate is can space is disturb forms of energy or not.

[koti]

4 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

Ten pages and no sensible answer to what space is... 

Space is volume.

Quote

In QT, space is a pre-determined entity in the postulates of QT. And any form of energy (matter, temperature, time, etc.) can never cause any disturbances on space -- in a nutshell space has different units to the fundamental units this inhibits any and allall forms of interaction.

GR on the other hand does not share this belief. Stating that energy(time) and space can cause interact with each other and hence space disturbs matter and vice verca

Obviously either QT or GR is wrong about what space can or cant interact with energy.

As to what space is, why it has the dimensions it has, whats it prime cause... is beyond the standard model and only speculative ideas can be suggested.

For now the true debate is can space is disturb forms of energy or not.

Space is volume.

[Romeo22]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Space is volume.

Space is volume.

Space is not volume.

Matter has volume so does space, whether that volume in R*3 is infinite or not is what u nd I should be discussing

 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Romeo22 said:

Space is not volume.

Matter has volume so does space, whether that volume in R*3 is infinite or not is what u nd I should be discussing

 

Space is volume and volume is a property of things. Empty space does not exist as a distinct entity, just like 'length' doesn't. Vacuum energy is the lowest energy state a volume can have ( filled with virtual particles) but it's not zero i.e it is not 'nothing' or empty.

[Romeo22]

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Space is volume and volume is a property of things. Empty space does not exist as a distinct entity, just like 'length' doesn't. Vacuum energy is the lowest energy state a volume can have ( filled with virtual particles) but it's not zero i.e it is not 'nothing' or empty.

I know what you just said sounds correct based on Machian thinking etc.

But DO NOT say "empty space does not exist as distinct entity"

What are the postulates of quantum mechanics?

What are the postulates of Newtonian Gravity?

Volume is a property of space and matter but it is neither space nor matter.

And as for the vacuum energy that is not a property of space (if u followed my earlier thoughts, I raised a question. Can space interact with matter/energy? )

Your answer already assumes this is true but you are using vacuum energy of QT which is a paradox.

Vacuum energy based on E >= mc squared . Is still a property of energy and not of space. Check the calculations in QT.

[MigL]

Quite right.

It is more explicitly stated as GR does not require a background 'stage' on which events happen.
The stage is considered part of the events, and is not absolute.
( note that this is space-time, not simply space )

Quantum theory, on the other hand, does have an absolute background 'stage' on which events happen.

GR and QT are formulated differently, and that is one reason for the difficulty in formulating a Quantum Gravity theory.
SString theory relies on a separate 'stage' like QT, but LQG tries to preserve the 'stage' independence of GR.
( and that's why I prefer it )

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Romeo22 said:

But DO NOT say "empty space does not exist as distinct entity"

 

Quote

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.  

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

Note this is in the Relativity forum.

Edited December 31, 2018 by StringJunky

[Strange]

12 hours ago, Romeo22 said:

Space is not volume.

Matter has volume so does space

So you agree that space is volume?

12 hours ago, Romeo22 said:

whether that volume in R*3 is infinite or not is what u nd I should be discussing

Whether space is infinite or not is not the subject of the thread. Note that this makes no difference to any theories and so we can’t know.