Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

What is Space made of?


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#21 Mordred

Mordred

    Resident Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 4,215 posts

Posted 6 September 2016 - 03:50 PM

I believe the statement" space is filled with the standard model particles and fields" is a better statement than space being some form of ether is more accurate.


It is those fields and SM particles that determines the topography.

The point being space itself does not have its own unique particles, which would be required for an ether. Unless you accept the graviton neither does gravity...
Even twistor theory doesn't state space itself has its own particles. Though I had to confirm that with a PH.d that specialized in string/twistor theory.

The metric tensor is determined via SM particle distribution.

Thanks for the spelling corrections.

I'm curious though why you would post a 1922 translation. The details of that paper is outdated by later research.

Edited by Mordred, 6 September 2016 - 04:16 PM.

  • 0
http://www.einsteins.../LightCone.html
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main
http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/start
If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules.

#22 Tim88

Tim88

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 385 posts

Posted 6 September 2016 - 08:09 PM

I believe the statement" space is filled with the standard model particles and fields" is a better statement than space being some form of ether is more accurate.

[..]

I'm curious though why you would post a 1922 translation. The details of that paper is outdated by later research.

 

That is better, however as I understand from Neumaier's book on QFT, it's inaccurate to put "the standard model particles and fields"; particles are assumed to be phenomena caused by fields. Maybe if you want to go beyond pure GR, you have to choose your favourite quantum theory! And if I'm not mistaken, even in absence of such particles or fields, the speed of light and the lengths of rulers are supposedly determined in GR.

 

Further, "outdated" could merely refer to fashion; that does not suffice for making pertinent claims as if giving factual statements. So, now I am curious what of Einstein's paper has convincingly been disproved by later research. BTW, a similar paper stems from 1924 but it's not yet available on Wikisource, so for onlookers I chose the more accessible version. Similarly I often cite Einstein's 1905 paper for SR as it's in some points clearer and more precise than a number of later papers by other authors.


Edited by Tim88, 6 September 2016 - 08:10 PM.

  • 0

#23 Mordred

Mordred

    Resident Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 4,215 posts

Posted 7 September 2016 - 04:25 AM

Good point on particles and fields. I was considering a rewrite on that post. Unpinning this thread and replacing the article. It had initially hoped for a more collaborative on its initial writing.

A couple of details I wish to add is a decent example of many particle distribution and how it correlates to the metric tensor and geodesics.

The problem isn't that I can't derive the necessary equations. It's finding a series of derivitaves that can be readily followed.

Specifically thinking the Newtonian limit where g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}

I'm certainly open to other suggestions. However I feel this may be a good way of showing the field aspects of mass only.

In a way I've been posting numerous derivitaves along these lines in Speculations and relativity forum to test how well they are understood by others.

Edited by Mordred, 7 September 2016 - 05:21 AM.

  • 0
http://www.einsteins.../LightCone.html
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main
http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/start
If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules.

#24 nimae

nimae

    Quark

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 9 December 2016 - 09:54 AM

If the variables in a system were relative to each other, That relativity could turn into a dimension like space. The differences in the relativity would be seen as "distance" by the creatures living on that plane.

 

Hope that's understandable.


  • 0

#25 studiot

studiot

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 6,477 posts
  • LocationSomerset, England

Posted 9 December 2016 - 10:07 AM

If the variables in a system were relative to each other, That relativity could turn into a dimension like space. The differences in the relativity would be seen as "distance" by the creatures living on that plane.

 

Hope that's understandable.

 

Not exactly but I think you are referring to what is known as intrinsic geometry.

 

Perhaps if you would like to explain in greater detail?

 

This extract from

 

Elementary Geometry : Roe : Oxford University Press

 

might help. Read paragraph 12.1 in particular.

 

intrinsic1.jpg


Edited by studiot, 9 December 2016 - 11:03 AM.

  • 0

#26 nimae

nimae

    Quark

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 9 December 2016 - 12:10 PM

 

Not exactly but I think you are referring to what is known as intrinsic geometry.

 

Perhaps if you would like to explain in greater detail?

 

This extract from

 

Elementary Geometry : Roe : Oxford University Press

 

might help. Read paragraph 12.1 in particular.

 

attachicon.gifintrinsic1.jpg

 

 

 

Assuming that space just like most things is made of something else you get to the conclusion that there is a point without space. So then how could you have space ? You need a variable that interacts with every other variable. You could then measure the location of each variable based on its interactions with the main variable(s).


  • 0

#27 studiot

studiot

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 6,477 posts
  • LocationSomerset, England

Posted 9 December 2016 - 02:39 PM

 

 

 

Assuming that space just like most things is made of something else you get to the conclusion that there is a point without space. So then how could you have space ? You need a variable that interacts with every other variable. You could then measure the location of each variable based on its interactions with the main variable(s).

 

 

What did you make of my reference?

 

 

One way to look at what you are asking is like this.

 

Consider the parabola y = x2.

 

What do you need to be able to draw it (for it to exist) ?

 

Well you need the +x axis and the -x axis and the +y axis.

 

But you do not need the -y axis.

 

In fact you do not need the entire half plane below the x axis.

 

 

So you are asking the equivalent of

 

Does that half plane exist for my purposes?

 

Would you agree?


Edited by studiot, 9 December 2016 - 02:39 PM.

  • 1

#28 Mordred

Mordred

    Resident Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 4,215 posts

Posted 9 December 2016 - 03:50 PM

nice reference and example Studiot. I don't want to add anything just yet. Might add confusion. My explanations often do lol.

Edited by Mordred, 9 December 2016 - 03:59 PM.

  • 0
http://www.einsteins.../LightCone.html
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main
http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/start
If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules.

#29 nimae

nimae

    Quark

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 14 December 2016 - 12:32 AM

 

 


 

Would you agree?

 

 

I think that's not what i meant.

 

 

With the assumption that space isn't magically created we can come to only one conclusion, That something makes space. That something obviously exists before there is space, in a space-less zone.

 

We can also safely assume that maths and relativistic models still apply in this space-less zone. Whatever is there could be called information for our purposes.

 

 

In this space-less zone if you have one type of information that is very mathematically relativistic to every other type of information change then it would emulate geometry and space.

 

 

So for example if information x (matter) changes by 1, It's relation variable to y (the main relativistic info) changes by 1. This is space for all practical purposes.


  • 0

#30 Mike Smith Cosmos

Mike Smith Cosmos

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,977 posts
  • LocationU.K. / ITALY

Posted 14 December 2016 - 07:26 AM

.
You appear to have here, three possible sources for the truth , for what really is SPACE?

1) Is it the sum total of all Mathematical rules. .. Or

2) Is it the sum total of all of the standard model particles and fields , already discovered as well as those not yet descovered.

3) Is it the sum total of things going on that we ARE and/ or, ARE NOT YET AWARE , or we have not any conception of what they are or what is going on ?

Mike

Ps . I would suggest that the third definition is more likely to be nearer to the truth ( reality ) than the first or second , As the first two assume we currently have all the maths and all the particles and fields , and knowledge of everything that is going on ! ( which I would suggest is not true ) ?

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, 14 December 2016 - 07:47 AM.

  • 0

 I have retired to a quiet place to think. ! ..................................................EUREKA !  ...........................I have it ! 


#31 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,405 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 14 December 2016 - 05:38 PM

4. It is just the distance between things.

Assuming that space just like most things is made of something else you get to the conclusion that there is a point without space. So then how could you have space ?

If you don't assume that, then you don't reach that conclusion.

And there is no real reason to assume that.

Edited by Strange, 14 December 2016 - 06:45 PM.

  • 0

#32 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,067 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 14 December 2016 - 07:27 PM

If you don't assume that, then you don't reach that conclusion.

And there is no real reason to assume that.


Or it's proof by contradiction
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#33 VandD

VandD

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 25 December 2016 - 08:30 PM

4. It is just the distance between things.

 

The distance between simulaneous events.


  • 1

#34 Char lie

Char lie

    Lepton

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 4 January 2017 - 10:15 AM

Space is just made of nothing. There is no real space as we picture it. If you take earth as the observer, our planète is "touching" the sun.
Relativity stops time in earth movement towards the sun created by gravity. But when space contracts enough, time stop and so the mouvement.
It touches the sun as we never touched nothing.
Maths dictates that distance can only diminish to an infinitely small size, so we shall never create a contact...
Could maths be wrong?

I tell you.. no it can't.

Relativity makes us stop our move towards matter because of space contraction.
I'm working on origin of gravity and brownien movements.
Energie cannot be by itself, yes, but Then, how come matter provide energie? Where does it come from? What physical concept create this energie?
Differential pressure I tell you. Between empty space(Nothing, no matter) and non empty space(matter).

What has to be specified is that the actual volume occupied by matter is still occupied by nothing too. Our universe is 2 dimensional at the end. Creation of time is to be taken as a mistake, an anomaly. Reality is to be understood with no time factor. Because, time factor involves death and so emotions, and so disturbs the signal of understanding, giving worth to unworthy parameters.
You want to understand the universe, you have to start with creating the appropriate referential. Universe="infinity"(to be discussed later, because, universe is as infinite than finite.)

So knowing the universe is the same as knowing yourself, and if yourself is the universe, you don't a shit about time...
So take it out your thinking for more clarifications.

Thanks for reading.feedback much appreciated.

Best regards to all and happy new year!

Charles R.
  • -1

#35 Itoero

Itoero

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 547 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 4 January 2017 - 10:42 AM

Space is imo a form of energy.
  • 0
There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.

#36 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 6,103 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 4 January 2017 - 10:47 AM

Space is imo a form of energy.

Space is what you measure: volume


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#37 Itoero

Itoero

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 547 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 4 January 2017 - 12:07 PM

Space is what you measure: volume

So in theory, you can have space time without space?
  • 0
There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.

#38 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 6,103 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 4 January 2017 - 12:28 PM

So in theory, you can have space time without space?

Where'd you get that idea from, especially when 'space' is in its name?


Edited by StringJunky, 4 January 2017 - 12:30 PM.

  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#39 Itoero

Itoero

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 547 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 4 January 2017 - 12:55 PM

Where'd you get that idea from, especially when 'space' is in its name?

I don't know if this makes any sense but for space (a measurement) you need more then one particle...perhaps space time doesn't demand more then one particle.
  • 0
There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.

#40 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,067 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 4 January 2017 - 01:37 PM

I'm working on origin of gravity and brownien movements.
Energie cannot be by itself, yes, but Then, how come matter provide energie? Where does it come from? What physical concept create this energie?
Differential pressure I tell you. Between empty space(Nothing, no matter) and non empty space(matter).


Space is imo a form of energy.

 

!

Moderator Note

Speculation belongs in the speculations forum (and needs proper support for the discussion. Unsupported opinion is not enough). Please restrict feedback in this thread to mainstream physics, and stay on-topic.


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users