What is Space made of?

[Romeo22]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

So you agree that space is volume?

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. 

So you agree? Ur reasoning is always amusing to me. An electron has spin... do u agree that an electron is spin? Basically that is all u have said

Space being infinite is another property of space, so is its dimensions another property.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Romeo22

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

Space being infinite is another propert of space, so is its dimensions another property.

What?

 

[Romeo22]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 

Note this is in the Relativity forum.

@stringjunky I have already made this clear that in GR space is different than Newtonian and Quantum physics.

Thus I said you need to make a choice.

[Strange]

Just now, Romeo22 said:

@stringjunky I have already made this clear that in GR space is different than Newtonian and Quantum physics.

Thus I said you need to make a choice.

And, for the purposes of this thread, that choice is "relativity".

[Romeo22]

Just now, Strange said:

And, for the purposes of this thread, that choice is "relativity".

The OP did not specify which according to my knowledge.

And as I said before either GR space or QT/Newtonian Space is WRONG they cannot both be correct.

This is the fundamental reason why GR cannot be quantized.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Romeo22 said:

The OP did not specify which according to my knowledge.

Which part of "IT IS IN THE RELATIVITY FORUM" is hard for you to understand?

[Romeo22]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

What?

 

You are talking about properties of space and not what space is.

I personally favor the view of Newton and Quantum theory so from my point of view:

SPACE is an entity that cannot interact with ALL forms of energy.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Which part of "IT IS IN THE RELATIVITY FORUM" is hard for you to understand?

In relativity forum? While your very answers where based on QT. Again its always amusing strange.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Romeo22

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

You are talking about properties of space and not what space is.

Ontologically, in physics, what a thing 'is' is its properties. 

[Romeo22]

Finally we agree, but you named one property. Space is volume. Neglected the rest. But I was drawing you to the most important property whether it interacts with energy/matter or not.

[dimreepr]

energy/matter has to have somewhere to happen.

[studiot]

I think that simply saying space is volume merely replaces one word with another.

You could equally ask "What is volume?"

In fact space is not just any old volume, it is a particular sort of volume.

So to say something more useful than "space is volume you" have to detail its particulars.

Furthermore that particular volume does indeed interact with energy (in the form of EM waves since there is no such thing as 'pure energy') as evidenced by the easily measurable complex impedance of free space, usually denoted by the symbol Z_o.

Edited December 31, 2018 by studiot

[Romeo22]

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think that simply saying space is volume merely replaces one word with another.

You could equally ask "What is volume?"

In fact space is not just any old volume, it is a particular sort of volume.

So to say something more useful than "space is volume you" have to detail its particulars.

 

+1

Furthermore that particular volume does indeed interact with energy (in the form of EM waves since there is no such thing as 'pure energy') as evidenced by the easily measurable complex impedance of free space, usually denoted by the symbol Z_o.

-- Maxwell theory is background independent. Its only in GRs view where space can slow down objects or cause any visible manifestations on objects or bodies

With that said, Energy is temperature/matter/waves/etc. Is there any other theory in standard physics besides Einstein's GR that predicts that space can affect energy? The answer is none. Makes you wonder.

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

energy/matter has to have somewhere to happen.

A predetermined stage. A stage that had all the properties to allow manifestations such as the big bang

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

A predetermined stage.

by whom?

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Romeo22 said:

SPACE is an entity that cannot interact with ALL forms of energy.

As all forms of energy cause spacetime curvature, this appears to incorrect.

Which forms of energy does it not interact with?

[Romeo22]

47 minutes ago, Strange said:

As all forms of energy cause spacetime curvature, this appears to incorrect.

Which forms of energy does it not interact with?

I have already talked about the difference between GR and QT and I said I favor the view of Newtonian Gravity, Maxwell dynamics and Quantum theory.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

by whom?

By what cause... do not put me in a box good Sir.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

I have already talked about the difference between GR and QT and I said I favor the view of Newtonian Gravity, Maxwell dynamics and Quantum theory.

Which doesn't answer the question.

4 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

I favor the view of Newtonian Gravity

It has the advantage of simplicity.

But does labour under the not inconsiderable disadvantage of being wrong.

[Romeo22]

It does in fixed background view

And they both cant be correct. So you cannot have an inclusive definition if either GR or QTs view is wrong

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

It does in fixed background view

And they both cant be correct. So you cannot have an inclusive definition if either GR or QTs view is wrong

What is "it"?

What does "it" do in the fixed background?

Both what can't be correct?

An inclusive definition of what?

 

[MigL]

Space is simply space.
It does not need to make a choice.
WE need to make the choice as to which model we use, as the models used by GR and QT are currently incompatible.

Perhaps I wasn't clear with my previous explanation...

In QT, we can assign a co-ordinate system to a certain volume.
That co-ordinate system is absolute and immutable.
Quantum events happen on the stage of that co-ordinate system.

In GR we can also assign a co-ordinate system to a volume ( more specifically volume with an orthogonal time dimension ).
Yet that co-ordinate system is affected ( curved ) by mass-energy distributions within it.
It is not absolute, and in effect, becomes part of, and modifies events.

Romeo22 implies that space can only be one of the choices, the other must be wrong.
He is confusing the models we use, and which have specific areas of applicability, with the reality.
But he is correct in stating that the models of GR and QT use a different paradigm.
( and so we wait for  Quantum  Gravity to unify the two )

 

[studiot]

21 hours ago, Romeo22 said:

With that said, Energy is temperature/matter/waves/etc. Is there any other theory in standard physics besides Einstein's GR that predicts that space can affect energy? The answer is none. Makes you wonder.

Energy is a property not a thing.

The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago.

 

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

energy/matter has to have somewhere to happen.

Exactly so.

Space on its own is a general term for the stage where stuff happens.

We need to tie it down with qualifiers to properly identify which stage we are talking about.
 

This is why, for instance, my comment used the term free space.

But 'Space' could be limited to area or even a linear measurement, rather than volume.

Which brings in measure.

Many useful spaces (including all geometric spaces) possess a measure or distance property as mathematically defined and called a metric.

Unfortunately Physics has (once again) a different definition of the word metric, but it is equally important, especially when considering Relativity questions.

Back to the mathematical definiton leads us to consider those spaces without a metric.

These are topological spaces and non metric topological spaces lead us directly to wormholes with the 'gluing' rules of topology.

Computer programmers use another such space with packman type games on screen.

 

To understand Space and its qualifiers we need to look into set theory, functions, mappings and containers.

A good simple example of this would be to explore this view of 'vectors'; this readily shows how you need a 'container' filled with several different sets to develop useful a useful theory - that of vector spaces.

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by studiot

[koti]

@MigL, Nice, simple, synthetic and straight to the point, +1.

[Romeo22]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Space is simply space.
It does not need to make a choice.
WE need to make the choice as to which model we use, as the models used by GR and QT are currently incompatible.

Perhaps I wasn't clear with my previous explanation...

In QT, we can assign a co-ordinate system to a certain volume.
That co-ordinate system is absolute and immutable.
Quantum events happen on the stage of that co-ordinate system.

In GR we can also assign a co-ordinate system to a volume ( more specifically volume with an orthogonal time dimension ).
Yet that co-ordinate system is affected ( curved ) by mass-energy distributions within it.
It is not absolute, and in effect, becomes part of, and modifies events.

Romeo22 implies that space can only be one of the choices, the other must be wrong.
He is confusing the models we use, and which have specific areas of applicability, with the reality.
But he is correct in stating that the models of GR and QT use a different paradigm.
( and so we wait for  Quantum  Gravity to unify the two )

 

Thanks for recapping what I have already said...

About your comment "He is confusing the models we use, and which have specific areas of applicability, with the reality."

Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, especially about space. Thus it is an inevitable truth that the other is wrong.

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

Thanks for recapping what I have already said...

About your comment "He is confusing the models we use, and which have specific areas of applicability, with the reality."

Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, especially about space. Thus it is an inevitable truth that the other is wrong.

The 'truth' is what works for a given application.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's stick to the topic of the OP

The discussion on "time is energy" has been split
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117599-time-is-energy-split-from-what-is-space-made-of/

 

 

[Lizwi]

Everything that exists