Romeo22 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: Space being infinite is another propert of space, so is its dimensions another property. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo22 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo22 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo22 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo22 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 energy/matter has to have somewhere to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) 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 Zo. Edited December 31, 2018 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo22 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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 Zo. -- 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 30 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: A predetermined stage. by whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo22 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo22 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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? -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 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 ) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 (edited) 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 @MigL, Nice, simple, synthetic and straight to the point, +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo22 Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 ! Moderator Note Let's stick to the topic of the OP The discussion on "time is energy" has been splithttps://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117599-time-is-energy-split-from-what-is-space-made-of/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizwi Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Everything that exists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now