fredreload Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 We can't see space, but we know it has a shape. Why? Because light bends when it travels in space possibly due to relativity. So why doesn't light travel in a straight line even though the space is bent? That means the space has a limit or shape, that light travels in certain direction of this shape will be less affected or more affected by relativistic effect. Now we can't see space, because space is transparent, but it has a quanta, a space is built grain by grain as I've read somewhere, because it needs a unit, or else nothing would exist in it. Lastly, since it is transparent, and we can pass through it, how do we detect it? The same way that light curves with space, we use light photon to detect its shape. My speculation is to have light photon, or any elementary particle, travel in every known existing path from a center. This path, with enough speed, would create a relativistic effect and we measure this relativistic effect where it is at it's strongest. Let's say if the S shape take 3 seconds to travel but the V shape only takes 2, then we might be able to assume that S shape is closer to the shape of the universe, keep in mind that it needs to be measured in equal length and time abiding by the relativistic effect we can observe. If there is a way to reveal the invisible shape of the universe, it is even better. Now if you go over this limit something cool might happen. It's not like if you move in certain direction your hand disappear or something but, maybe we enough speed we can run parallel to the shape of space a quanta. Keep in that space converge, in on direction, it does not expand, so the distance only gets shorter, with the paradox of relativity, not expanding. Your turn doctor Strange In conclusion, space has a shape, space has a quanta, and space has a limit. We should try and exploit this limit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 but it has a quanta, a space is built grain by grain as I've read somewhere, because it needs a unit, or else nothing would exist in it. There is no evidence for that. And one of the challenges in current physics is that it would conflict with General Relativity. The same way that light curves with space, we use light photon to detect its shape. Gravity is another way we can detect / measure the curvature of spacetime. Redshift is another. and space has a limit. We don't know if space is finite or infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredreload Posted November 14, 2016 Author Share Posted November 14, 2016 There is no evidence for that. And one of the challenges in current physics is that it would conflict with General Relativity. Gravity is another way we can detect / measure the curvature of spacetime. Redshift is another. We don't know if space is finite or infinite. But I've read on a .org site that space has a quanta, if space does not have a quanta we won't exist, it would be a gello and nothing in it. And if it has a quanta it has a limit. I have a feeling we are going to be stuck on this argument, we'll call it a draw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 But I've read on a .org site that space has a quanta, if space does not have a quanta we won't exist, it would be a gello and nothing in it. There is no evidence (yet) that space is quantised. This would probably require a theory of quantum gravity. Many people are working on various ideas but there is currently no evidence to support any of them. And if it has a quanta it has a limit. I assumed you meant that it is finite. What do you mean by "limit"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 But I've read on a .org site that space has a quanta, if space does not have a quanta we won't exist, it would be a gello and nothing in it. And if it has a quanta it has a limit. I have a feeling we are going to be stuck on this argument, we'll call it a draw ! Moderator Note That's not enough to base a discussion on. You need to do better and comply with the speculations guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredreload Posted November 14, 2016 Author Share Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) There is no evidence (yet) that space is quantised. This would probably require a theory of quantum gravity. Many people are working on various ideas but there is currently no evidence to support any of them. I assumed you meant that it is finite. What do you mean by "limit"? Oh snap, limit that you can move the most distance with the smallest amount of time passing by. It's like if the shape of space is "/" and I move like "\", I run into space and time flows. But if I run parallel to the space in this "/" direction. I get closer to a limit and time would not pass. If you don't like the idea of space, think of water flowing down stream, if you move against the stream, you experience the maximum time flow(resistance), if you move with the water down stream, you experience no resistance(no time loss). This is assuming space is finite. This would get you the structure of space time, simply measure distance versus time. Now I would not dare assume that you can slip through space time. I just think as long as you can identify the space time's structure you can unveil many mysteries Well, another property of space is that it contracts when you move at high speed, why do I assume that, because of distance reduction from relativistic effect. Now many people are probably going to argue with me on this too. I am looking at it from the space time's view so, it's not really something you feel getting shorter, but an actual distance reduction measured with a timer so, I'll leave it at this http://phys.org/news/2009-12-spacetime-hints-quantum-gravity-theory.html https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150430-space-time-interactive/ P.S. And now for my question Strange, what makes the light curve in space? Light is not affected by gravity because it has no mass. Edited November 14, 2016 by fredreload Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Oh snap, limit that you can move the most distance with the smallest amount of time passing by. It's like if the shape of space is "/" and I move like "\", I run into space and time flows. But if I run parallel to the space in this "/" direction. I get closer to a limit and time would not pass. I'm afraid I have no idea what that means. P.S. And now for my question Strange, what makes the light curve in space? Light is not affected by gravity because it has no mass. Light is affected by gravity, even Newton knew that (although his theory gives the wrong result; which is why that was one of the first tests of GR). But the reason that light is curved in GR is that it follows the curvature of space-time. Light always moves along what are called null-geodesics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredreload Posted November 14, 2016 Author Share Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) This post suggested light's photon weight is too small to be affected by gravity http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107930/why-can-light-photons-bends-in-a-curve-through-space-without-mass And what's null-geodesics? Edited November 14, 2016 by fredreload Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Apparently it wasn't Newton who worked this out, but someone else using his theory: The pioneer of a mathematical description of gravity, Sir Isaac Newton, apparently wrote nothing about the effect of mass on the path of light rays, other than to note at the end of his treatise, "Opticks," published in 1704, that light particles should be affected by gravity in the same way as is ordinary matter. The first calculation of the deflection of light by mass was published by the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801. Soldner showed that rays from a distant star skimming the Sun's surface would be deflected through an angle of about 0.9 seconds of arc, or one quarter of a thousandth of a degree. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection A geodesic is the generalisation of a straight line to curved spaces. A null geodesic is the path followed by massless particles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredreload Posted November 14, 2016 Author Share Posted November 14, 2016 Apparently it wasn't Newton who worked this out, but someone else using his theory: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection A geodesic is the generalisation of a straight line to curved spaces. A null geodesic is the path followed by massless particles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity Geodesic could be the world line of a particle. World line has quite an interesting explanation. You are good to pull this out lol. We'll call it a draw ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 ! Moderator Note If you don't know that photons are affected by gravity, etc., then perhaps the best course of action is to ask questions and learn physics, before coming up with a new "theory" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts