Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.
Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.
You are not logged in.
I have heard and read many ideas on what people think space is. everything from space is not a thing at all, to space is a mutating field, it can be born and die. The fact that there is such a diverse range of answers tells me that there is no difinitive answer. Nobody really knows.
What do you think?
Steve
Offline
if by space you mean a region of low density, but still cluttered with matter and energy (radiation from stars, and background radiation from the big bang)
then space is defined as a physical thing, because it is made up of physical things.
However, if you mean the true essence of space, as being a perfect vacuum, absent of any matter and negligible amounts of energy, then i would say that it is a field, warped by gravity, with regions of high and low potential, affecting not itself, only what is put inside it.
Dimensions themselves, are not physical, but merely constructs to describe physical quantities, directions and other vector quantities.
They are an intuitive concept of certain degrees of freedom, of which we have been accustomed to since the dawn of mankind.
That is, the first 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th temporal dimension isnt as intuitive, but is necessary to explain a universe in which gravity plays a strong part, even if it is a weak force.
Offline
jovial01 wrote:
if by space you mean a region of low density, but still cluttered with matter and energy (radiation from stars, and background radiation from the big bang)
then space is defined as a physical thing, because it is made up of physical things.
Low density? Space has a density? Those things that clutter space do not make space, they are in an area called space. Just like those things that clutter a room do not make a room, the clutter is in a room.
If space is a physical thing then it would have an atomic structure, and science would have described this atomic structure. This physical thing called space, in what does it exist?
You say that space is a physical thing because it is made of physical things, what physical things?
Offline
jovial01 wrote:
However, if you mean the true essence of space, as being a perfect vacuum, absent of any matter and negligible amounts of energy, then i would say that it is a field, warped by gravity, with regions of high and low potential, affecting not itself, only what is put inside it.
Space is a field? What type of field? Again are you saying that space has an atomic structure?
Regions of high and low potential?
Offline
Einstein said he wasn't interested so much in what matter was as in what is inbetween it. This was Einstein's Space Aether.
Offline
So is space a real physical entity? Does it have an atomic structure and mass? What have you observed in regards to space?
Offline
Space-time can be empty.
Offline
I am talking about just space. So are you saying space is like a container that can be empty or full?
When you say it can be empty, how does this container become empty?
Offline
Space-time becomes empty when matter moves out of it.
Offline
Matter moves out of space-time and into what? A different part of space-time? Are you saying that there are sections of space-time that matter can move out of? If so what separates these sections?
Again, I ask you, is space a physical thing?
Offline
If space wasn't a physical thing it would not belong to physics.
My personal belief is that space has a substance.
Last edited by Nicholas (2007-12-08 02:45:36)
Offline
Your personal belief. that is nice, but what is the definition of space according to reference books? If space were a substance then a substance made of what atomic structure, and that would mean that space has mass, and therefore would be a thing existing in what. Space would be a physical thing that occupies space. Each electron that makes this this object known as space would have space (distance) between them made of space, it seems as though space would be very solid with all of these electrons separated by more electrons, which in turn are separated by more electrons. How could this be?
Space is just the term given to that area that is between things. It is not a physical substance. Physical things like cars, cats, oxygen, water vapor, light, radio waves, are not space! They travel from one point to another, or exist in an area called space. This physical thing called space would also have to exist in some area. If space was a physical thing then its atoms would move around in what?
Offline
I believe it is a physical substance. How could emptiness curve?
No it must have substance.
All those things mentioned are extended in space therefor they are spatial in nature.
Last edited by Nicholas (2007-12-08 05:19:24)
Offline
You believe it is a physical substance. Not based on scientific evidence. All physical things take up space and exist independent of space. There is the object and the space that it exists in, objects are not space. So where does this physical object of space exist? Think about it.
Have you ever seen emptiness curve? How could tell if emptiness curved?
Offline
"Space" is nature's way of keeping everything from being all in the same place...and "Time" is nature's way of keeping it from happening all at once.
Though somewhat humorous, it's nevertheless true. As far as I know, space is one of the three "fundamental indefinables" in physics; time is the second, and mass (or force—take your pick) the third. In other words, every other quantity in physics is defined via a set of rules that, ultimately, involves some combination of space (distance), time, and mass (or force). But those three "fundamental indefinables" are defined only "operationally"—that is, via procedures for their measurement. So, for example, we define the distance between two points as the number of "standard" rigid measuring rods that we can lay end-to-end between those two points.
So, how can space "curve" and not be a "physical substance?" Well, what do we mean by "curved space?" We mean that the measuring rods we use to determine distance relationships produce results that are at odds with Euclidean geometry. And that implies nothing at all about space as a "substance."
Offline
So, how can space "curve" and not be a "physical substance?" Well, what do we mean by "curved space?" We mean that the measuring rods we use to determine distance relationships produce results that are at odds with Euclidean geometry. And that implies nothing at all about space as a "substance."
How about using "real life" measuring rod's to measure the curvature of space, instead mathematical constructs.
Offline
Martin wrote:
"Space" is nature's way of keeping everything from being all in the same place...and "Time" is nature's way of keeping it from happening all at once.
Though somewhat humorous, it's nevertheless true. As far as I know, space is one of the three "fundamental indefinables" in physics; time is the second, and mass (or force—take your pick) the third.
."
So you think that space is a force that pushes things apart. Why is it that objects can remain at the same distance if there is a force that separates them, how is it that space can keep all of these different masses apart without physically moving them apart in the first place. I can move objects anywhere and they stay there, I make the space between objects. You really do not think that there is a force that separates these objects do you ? Besides, what science reference are you working from on this space is a force idea?
The same goes for your idea of time, what reference is this from? Time is a man made concept, time pieces are man made tools. When you say everything happening at once, how exactly does it do this?
You say this is true, true according to what experiment, or observation. What makes your idea true in the scientific community?
Offline
Dubliner wrote:
So, how can space "curve" and not be a "physical substance?" Well, what do we mean by "curved space?" We mean that the measuring rods we use to determine distance relationships produce results that are at odds with Euclidean geometry. And that implies nothing at all about space as a "substance."
How about using "real life" measuring rod's to measure the curvature of space, instead mathematical constructs.
That is precisely how it is done: Physical, "real life" measurements are indeed made. "Curvature" simply means that the results of the measurements are inconsistent with what we would expect based on the "flat" geometry of Euclid.
Offline
steve wrote:
Martin wrote:
"Space" is nature's way of keeping everything from being all in the same place...and "Time" is nature's way of keeping it from happening all at once.
Though somewhat humorous, it's nevertheless true. As far as I know, space is one of the three "fundamental indefinables" in physics; time is the second, and mass (or force—take your pick) the third.So you think that space is a force...
No...I never said anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, I stated very clearly that space and time are fundamental indefinables. I was using the quips about space and time—quips which are not original, but have been, in one form or another, attributed to various folks, including (for example) John Wheeler—simply to help illustrate the point .
...
You say this is true, true according to what experiment, or observation. What makes your idea true in the scientific community?
The "truth" lies in the fact that space-time was created in the "Big Bang," and has been expanding ever since.
Offline
Martin wrote:
Dubliner wrote:
So, how can space "curve" and not be a "physical substance?" Well, what do we mean by "curved space?" We mean that the measuring rods we use to determine distance relationships produce results that are at odds with Euclidean geometry. And that implies nothing at all about space as a "substance."
How about using "real life" measuring rod's to measure the curvature of space, instead mathematical constructs.That is precisely how it is done: Physical, "real life" measurements are indeed made. "Curvature" simply means that the results of the measurements are inconsistent with what we would expect based on the "flat" geometry of Euclid.
You say that physical “real life” measurements of curved space are indeed made. Made by who? Which scientific test was done to do this? Someone actually measured the curve of space, or are you just making this conclusion from math equations?
The results of the measurements? Where did you get these results? Are you saying someone measured curved space and got real results (measurements)
Also, why the quotes around real life? Were they real or not?
Offline
Martin wrote:
steve wrote:
Martin wrote:
"Space" is nature's way of keeping everything from being all in the same place...and "Time" is nature's way of keeping it from happening all at once.
Though somewhat humorous, it's nevertheless true. As far as I know, space is one of the three "fundamental indefinables" in physics; time is the second, and mass (or force—take your pick) the third.So you think that space is a force...
No...I never said anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, I stated very clearly that space and time are fundamental indefinables. I was using the quips about space and time—quips which are not original, but have been, in one form or another, attributed to various folks, including (for example) John Wheeler—simply to help illustrate the point .
...
You say this is true, true according to what experiment, or observation. What makes your idea true in the scientific community?The "truth" lies in the fact that space-time was created in the "Big Bang," and has been expanding ever since.
If space is needed to keep everything apart, that would mean that everything has some force that wants to push or pull everything together, and you say space is the thing that prevents this. If space is not a force then how does space achieve this overcoming of everything trying to come together?
Again, what scientific reference are you working from when you say that space keeps everything apart?
This space thing is weak enough for me to move objects together, yet keeps supertankers docked near each other, from coming together. Does this space thing push things apart or pull them apart, why is it that you are the first person to say that space keeps things apart?
Look up the definition of space and see if you can find your idea of what space is defined.
Offline
Martin, you say the Big Bang created space-time. So what are the physical building blocks that came together at this virgin birth of the universe? Or did this space-time thing also come from nothing, made from nothing into something. That goes against the laws of physics. This space-time creation exists in what medium? If it was a physical creation, then it is just another object in space.
The Big Bang theory is more of a belief than a scientifically, or mathematically proved occurrence. do you believe in the Big Bang because that is what you have been told as the beginning of the universe, despite all of the flaws in this idea.
Offline
Everything in the universe is happening at the same time. It is a universal now; a universal simultaneity seen by the hypersphere.
Space has a substance. It is a physical emptiness with curved directions.
Mitch Raemsch
Offline
Nicholas wrote:
Everything in the universe is happening at the same time. It is a universal now; a universal simultaneity seen by the hypersphere.
Space has a substance. It is a physical emptiness with curved directions.
Mitch Raemsch
Per what definition? Give a reference Nicholas. Your post all deal with your personal opinon
Per what definition? Give a reference Nicholas. Your post all deal with your personal opinion and not fact.
What is the purpose of this action? It leads nowhere. If you want to state something as fact then show or mention the reference. Stop just talking about your own personal interpretation of the physical universe. I have told you this before.
Offline
There is no refernece. It is my original knowledge.
I can express my opinion here. Is it not the purpose of this forum?
The substnace of space is that it is a physical emptiness that has curvature of direction.
Mitch Raemsch
Last edited by Nicholas (2007-12-24 00:00:20)
Offline
