alexcouch

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Well, actually it isn't. Because of quantum theory, we know that space is not empty. There is a non-zero amount of energy even in "empty" space and, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is full of particle-antiparticle pairs constantly coming into existence and then disappearing again.

This is perhaps the problem with "independent research". Unless you follow a very disciplined course of study (and there are many good books, courses and other resources available online) you may end up with some wrong ideas. You need to have a much more solid understanding before you are ready to start formulating your own ideas.

It may not make sense to you, but that is the classical (pre-quantum) view and I see no problem with there being something surrounded by areas of nothingness. "Making sense" is almost the worst possible basis for a scientific theory.

The universe may be finite or infinite. We just don't know. 

There are massless and changeless particles (e.g. the photon) which can have a known position, have momentum, etc. So this statement appears to be contradicted by reality.

Well, congratulations on your interest in science. But you have a lot to learn - which is great! The fantastic thing about science is that there is always more to learn. But most people study these subjects for many years in order to get an understanding of the basics. So 24 hours is not much! You might be better off using this forum as place to learn by asking questions...

Thank you so much for your input! I was absolutely hoping for a response like this. I knew that there were inconsistencies, and I am glad that you pointed out and explained each inconsistency and flaw with this idea. When I say "independent research" I was mainly reading up on various reputable sources from various university websites that have certain topics that they have explained by lecturers posted online. I also have been listening to some physicists on youtube talk as well, but that can get a little sketchy, cause it's youtube after all. And then the chargeless and massless part I learned from cause I did not know that photons were massless and chargeless, but I did have "light" in mind because I knew that light was massless but didn't think that it was chargeless, but we are all wrong sometimes! I really am looking to get into this kind of field one way or another, but again, I gotta take baby steps. This was just an idea that I had that I wanted to bounce off already established laws and theories before I start doing anything serious with it!

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Firstly congrats for at least realising that your idea is purely speculative. I say that because there are many unqualified people that come to a science forum to tell everyone participating, how mainstream science has got it wrong, and they have the answer!  [Particularly in the fields of astrophysics/cosmology and astronomy]. Secondly while there certainly is still much that needs to be explained, there is also much that has been explained. Afterall we can now give a reasonable picture of the evolution of spacetime from 10-43 seconds after the BB event, up to the present day and even predict into the future. Thirdly Cosmology and other relevant sciences, are in my opinion anyway, the most awe inspiring, interesting, and fulfilling sciences there are. So why not read up with a few reputable books, or attend a course. That way you will most certainly realize then how much we do know. I'm speaking from experience matey as I'm a rank amateur lay person on this myself,

Thank you for that congrats! I like to try to stay humble with my ideas because I don't like to get cocky with this kind of stuff. I am completely unqualified and I really wanted to dive into the world of physics to try and better prove or disprove any ideas I may have. I do agree that I should get into some books and attend some courses but I gotta stick to my game design school so I don't fail it and miss out on a great opportunity like a B.S. in Game Design, you know?

Both of you guys really helped me understand a lot! Thank you for your guys' inputs!

So I have an idea that I have been thinking about. I am doing independent research to work things out so that I can first disprove it before I really stick with it.

Now the philosophy behind this idea are that it CAN happen, but it's not definite. With how astrophysics is currently, there is so much that aren't being explained, nor being asked (as far as I can see, but I could be wrong). Now the thing about this idea is that it is currently conceptual, so don't take this as definite or anything. Now enough of my rambling...

My idea is regarding the composition of the universe. We are always fascinated by the idea that the universe is existing right now, but one thing that really perplexes me is its composition. You may be wondering why I'm thinking about its composition considering that its been established within the community that space is completely void. The problem with that is: what is a void, or what does it mean to be void? There is the concept of nothing but since there is really no such thing as "nothing", since that is how we think of the void we know as space. You can't really have nothing, cause if there is nothing, then why is there something within this nothing? There is matter within this void and that honestly doesn't make any sense. The concept of void or nothingness is completely philosophical. If space was really absolutely nothing, then that makes space infinite, but physically, there is not such thing as infinite, its just an idea...for now. So my idea is that space really isn't a vacuum chamber like we all say, nor is it a void. My idea is that space is occupied by a massless, chargeless substance, with an unknown property. We wouldn't be able to get a sample of it because it's massless, which means it won't have a position, inertia value, nor a momentum value. Since it's also chargeless, then is has no way of changing positions nor changing states. Because of this, sound can't move through it naturally. However, things can move through it just fine because there must be some unknown law that allows matter to move this said substance. Now the thing about this substance is that is has to be made of something. This something, I believe, to be string-like. Remember the string theory? Something along the lines of that, just massless and chargeless. Then particles just run along these strings like gravitons and quarks and elemental particles like electrons and protons and neutrons, and so on, just ride along any of these "strings". Now what gets really crazy, is when you have this collections of "strings" altogether, they have liquid like properties. So these "strings" or more or less much like rubber strings, where they can expand and contract. Not only that, but these "rubber band" like properties are only partial, and when you put them together with other liquid like properties, you get something completely different, when put with the whole massless and chargeless part, you get something completely new and different. It would be on levels beyond quark levels when it comes to size. In fact, it has no size, just like its mass and charge. It's not completely developed right now so it sounds completely inconsistent, I know, which is why I'm hoping that if anybody here are taking physics courses in university or have a degree in physics, then hopefully I could get some help with both determining its possibility and its details, with possibility being prioritized over details, obviously.

Now I have never taken a physics course, this is all from independent research. To be completely honest, I am a game design student, but this has been bogging my mind for the past 24 hours.