Nothing is nothing, so what is space and the darkness?

[GrandMasterK]

The ole universe created the 3 spacial dimensions that we see and whatever other dimensions that could be there that we don't percieve. or have a hope of comprehending.

 

My question is, the theory is without the universe there is no space. Nothing shouldn't be defined as just a black 3 dimensional void right, it should be viewed as nothing. Can't go there, there's nothing there, it's not anywhere, because it's nothing. What exactly...is space. There are no molecules (excluding the spots with molecules) in true space, it's just a vacuum. It's kinda bakin my noodle thinking that universe created space I just....I can't wrap my mind around it. It's not material right, just...how did it get there. If it's not there then what is distance? Is it supposed that on some sort of level something makes up space and it's just not emptyness. Cause to me, anywhere there's a dimension even time, means there isnt nothing, there's something.

 

It was never thought that space is infinite and the universe is just a section of matter and energy that from a distance would resemble a galaxy look. I'm trying to stay open to the fact that just because a human being can't comprehend infinity or the shape of the universe, doesn't mean it's not so.

 

I just, I could use alittle intelligent insight on this.

[ecoli]

Well, nobody knows for sure. It's a big part of string theory that postulates that the universe is composed of one dimensional strings. On a small enough scale, (something like 10^-35 cm - someong please check that number) the universe is not smooth anymore, but consists of coiled dimensions... I just learned about this stuff virtually yesterday, so I'm definately not the best person to be explaining it... Someone take over!

[Royston]

I'm not entirely sure what your question is, but if your noodle is being over cooked, google 'dark energy' and the 'cosmological constant', it may explain a few things.

 

As for cause...nothing then something, well there's plenty of theories for that, they're all debatable but feasible, but for now it's outside of science.

[ecoli]

I'm not entirely sure what your question is' date=' but if your noodle is being over cooked, google 'dark energy' and the 'cosmological constant', it may explain a few things.

 

As for cause...nothing then something, well there's plenty of theories for that, they're all debatable but feasible, because for now it's outside of science.[/quote']

 

I always thought it would be funny if Dark Energy and Aether turned out to be the same thing.

 

 

As for the nothingness outside this universe... if one should exist, some theoriest have proposed the existance of a metauniverse, which could possibly explain why gravity is such a weak force, and eliminates the need for dark matter.

[5614]

Firstly there is no such thing as a complete vacuum because you often get photons and always get virtual particles inside the "vacuum".

 

But ignoring that (which of course we shouldn't do) a vacuum is just the empty space between molecules. Why can you not define nothing as a 3D void? There's nothing stopping you. In fact I would define nothing as being a 3D void, or maybe 4D, but that's not the point.

 

Just because it is a void or a vacuum does not mean you cannot go there. Imagine the space between two electrons, it is a void, a vacuum, but one of the electrons can easily move into it. Whilst it may contain nothing that does not mean it is nothing. It is a vacuum between two electrons, that is something in itself (despite the fact it contains nothing).

 

Why is nothing there? Because nothing is. The universe is not infinitely dense so there will always be gaps. Nothing wrong with that. It is somewhere, the vacuum is between the two electrons (in this case). And what is distance? What do you mean? The distance of this vacuum could be the distance between the two electrons.

 

Can't go there, there's nothing there, it's not anywhere, because it's nothing.

You can go there e.g. electron moving into vacuum

There could be something there e.g. virtual particles, but if there isn't (which is possible) what's the prob?

It is somewhere e.g. between two electrons.

It might contain nothing but it is not nothing... it is a vacuum.

[Royston]

As for the nothingness outside this universe... if one should exist, some theoriest have proposed the existance of a metauniverse, which could possibly explain why gravity is such a weak force, and eliminates the need for dark matter.

 

Well I'm not sure of the strength of string theory at the moment...there's a part of me that wants it debunked when I finish my degree, because A. the maths are completely over my head, and B. strings can never be observed, and I'm wondering if maths can be manipulated to a point that they can fit observations without actually being the true picture.

[ecoli]

Well I'm not sure of the strength of string theory at the moment...there's a part of me that wants it debunked when I finish my degree, because A. the maths are completely over my head, and B. strings can never be observed, and I'm wondering if maths can be manipulated to a point that they can fit observations without actually being the true picture.

 

Well, I suppose if string theory can start making predictions about the world that can ONLY be explained by string theory, it will gain status much the way relativity or QM did.

[Martin]

Well, I suppose if string theory can start making predictions about the world that can ONLY be explained by string theory, it will gain status much the way relativity or QM did.

 

That is a general truth. It would also be true of more recent non-string QG theories.

 

but indeed a theory doesnt even have to do that, ecoli. If some stringy theory, OR some non-string quantum gravity theory would just make any prediction at all (about some future experiment or observation) and subsequently it checked out----then that theory would gain a lot of status.

[Martin]

... It's not material right, just...how did it get there. If it's not there then what is distance? ...

 

good points

best present knowledge is represented by the 1915 theory of General Relativity

 

space is obviously something----something we can talk about and that behaves according to laws

(it can bend, it can vibrate in waves, it can expand, collapse etc. according to the laws of the

1915 theory) but space is not a substance.

so how to think about something that is not a substance.

best way of saying is that space is the sum total of spatial relations LIKE distance, that you mentioned

 

relationships like between and around and more volume less volume and farther than nearer than and ANGLEs between directions and all that relational stuff

 

it is not a thing, it is a web of relations

and people picture that as network and study theories of it

 

but so far the classical theory is 1915 Gen Rel which says ALL THAT RELATIONSHIPS THAT MAKE UP SPACE IS summed up in a thing called the METRIC-----the metric is essentially a distance function telling distance between x and y but other information can be gotten out of it.

 

and with beautiful simplicity and economy, the GRAVITATIONAL FIELD is nothing else than the metric itself

and metrics can evolve dynamically as matter moves around

so matter tells the metric (i.e. spacetime geometry) how to curve and the curved geometry of the metric tells matter how to flow

and the amazintg thing is that the theory actually allows one to CALCULATE

 

so that give a pretty adequate idea of space-----just (distance etc) relationship---a network of relationships

and so far we dont have a better idea of what space is. AFAIK

 

theories people are working on have so far not offered a better idea of what it is

 

your questions are good, and yes it is not a substance----not a "material" as you put it

[LeDDeNHeiMeR]

well if you don't believe that space is "something" then what is there then. Because there can't possibly be nothing sitting in......nothing. Its just and infinite vacuum with infinitly many spots of molecules

[Royston]

That is a general truth. It would also be true of more recent non-string QG theories.

 

but indeed a theory doesnt even have to do that' date=' ecoli. If some stringy theory, OR some non-string quantum gravity theory would just make [b']any prediction at all[/b] (about some future experiment or observation) and subsequently it checked out----then that theory would gain a lot of status.

 

Of course, how stupid on my part I just turn cold whenever I look at papers on string theory. I also don't like the fact they'll never be observed (though also true of the inside of black holes), but hey, that'll be something to live with, if string theory becomes a reality.

[GrandMasterK]

what is meant by the "fabric" of space?

 

Space can't just be a bunch of singularities can it? On some level there has to be space between? I find the big bang not only making energy but making space and time to be a very interesting and hard to understand thing. Do they have theories on what made it do that or does it all just kinda stop with the "this is what happened" and not pose what could of caused it and why.

 

Our minds think on 4 dimensions. Knowing that, would it be better to say that those 4 dimensions are just the things WE as humans percieve and that there could be more, or that our minds have been designed for the universe, in which case the unvierse has 4 dimensions, so we evolved to percieve all those dimensions.

 

And it's completely unrandom random events that led us to come this far, not shorter or farther. We've evolved into rather smart creatures, pretty far away from all the other animals (dolphin crap aside). We've evolved into such a complexity that we've come close to wiping ourselves out. Now it seems we are smart enough to get to a different place in the solar system but perhaps may never be able to leave and are forced to enivitably die here?

 

We unlike other animals we know, have the ability to save ourselves and them. At the sametime we have the ability to destroy ourselves and them. At the sametime we've got a couple others chunks of rock we could move to, like Mars when the sun starts getting hotter but might not ever be able to reach a life supporting planet in another solar system. Even if we do, we just live off the resources the universe has to offer until it one day collapses on us unless we can somehow think in a way where we truely play god. Wow that sucks for us. Anyway I don't know where I was going with that.

 

black holes. A collapse in time/space right? They do however occupy space, very effeciently I might add, correct? And they are spherical shaped, equally drawing in gravity on all sides, becomnig sort of a planet that you can't see, correct? A star, being the sons a bitches they are, have the ability to do this, correct? And for whatever reason that may or may not be known (you tell me), pretty much every galaxy has a black hole in the middle of it. At z same time, there's not enough time left in the universe for black holes to suck everything up and really screw everything sideways.

 

I just don't really understand the things. What precisely happens. I've seen those digital renderings where space is represented as a flat grid and a blackhole is just those tunnel shaped hole in the grid. Do black holes really tear space a new one or are they just concentrations of ridiculous gravity that for some reason can store alot of energy in a small spot. Are they really holes or is it just a neat name? If you attach an unbreakable string to a planet the size of 99.99999999999% of the universe and chuck the other side into a a black hole taking up that .00000000001%, is the planet still f***ed?

 

Or wait a minute....wouldnt a planet that size have a stronger gravity field then a blackhole.....ooooo snap, a black hole getting sucked into a planet, that's comical!

[5614]

Fabric of space is spacetime.

 

Spacetime is a bunch of singularities and spaces between them. The big bang made the particles, nothing made the space, it just exists.

 

I don't understand: "Do they have theories on what made it do that or does it all just kinda stop with the "this is what happened" and not pose what could of caused it and why."

 

Our minds work in 3D because they are all the spatial dimensions in which we can consciously move. We know there is a 4th, it is possible there are more. As we only really percieve 3D and there are 4 I would not draw any conclusions on the number of dimensions from our perception.

 

Whilst technologically we could all get in space rockets and fly off into space we would not because we have no where to go. And we can't just say "go set up a base on Jupiter" because every other plannet in our solar system is unsuitable for human inhabitation and we would all die if before we reached our target if we aimed out of the solar system. We could have kids, but it's starting to become unrealistic because the supplies we would need for that would be unreal, etc. So maybe we might die on Earth, but what the hell has this got to do with anything?

 

Yes we are quite able. "Anyway I don't know where I was going with that." I agree.

 

You could describe a black hole as a place where spacetime collapses. They do quite efficiently occupy space in that they are dense. Stars do provide light allowing us to see, and you could think of a black hole as a plannet we cannot see. What are you talking about not being enough time for black hols to suck everything in?

 

Blackholes are holes in that things seem to fall into them. They are not a physical hole in spacetime. They are, as you said, "just concentrations of ridiculous gravity"

 

The situation you give is unrealisitic and impossible on a thoeretical and practical level. The object with the greater gravitational field would attract the other one.

 

This is all a bit, kind of random and unrelated, what exactly do you want to know or get out of this thread?

[Martin]

Of course, how stupid on my part...

what was? I certainly wasn't contradicting you, Snail----maybe someone else was criticising what you said?

 

As far as your misgivings about string-think: You are in good company. A lot of people including several nobel laureates (Anderson, Laughlin, Richter) have spoken out. String is looking less and less promising these days.

 

There was nervousness and discouragement at the Strings 05 conference in Toronto last summer. Interesting video online of a panel discussion of the future prospects. Get the link if you want.

 

String research output numbers have been declining for several years and the numbers of highly cited papers crashed.

 

===================

 

My point was about ANY theory that makes predictions which then check out.

 

I dont think it is likely that string will ever make successful predictions, but OTHER theories about the quantum nature of spacetime and matter are developing testable predictions. If these more recent non-string theories predictions jibe with observation then they will survive and gain status, if they fail the tests they will die.

 

At present the papers on the newer non-string approaches to the quantum nature of spacetime and matter are pretty technical---there has not been time for much popularization writing. My guess is that technical stuff is NOT what the O.P. (Grandmaster) wants to hear about.

 

But maybe I should give some links anyway, if it is not too intrusive.

[Apeofman]

The ole universe created the 3 spacial dimensions that we see and whatever other dimensions that could be there that we don't percieve. or have a hope of comprehending.

 

...Cause to me' date=' anywhere there's a dimension even time, means there isnt nothing, there's something.[/quote']

 

From the web book Apeofman say's ...They say,"Nothing is real and nothing matters".

 

"I must agree, for nothing is the sum of everything, disjointed by time."

 

It was never thought that space is infinite and the universe is just a section of matter and energy that from a distance would resemble a galaxy look. I'm trying to stay open to the fact that just because a human being can't comprehend infinity or the shape of the universe, doesn't mean it's not so.

 

Genuine open mindedness has virtues which i value highly. However it does have the disadvantage that a truly open minded person has weak beliefs and in extreme cases can become disfunctional.

 

Many of today's accepted truths based on facts, will fall away, as new facts and way's of interpreting them emerge. Just as they have throughout history. There is for example a new Brown Hole theory that challenges current ideas about black holes without the problems of infinite gravity/pressure raised by the black hole model.

 

As regards infinity in this universe, i suspect that every time nature is faced with an infinity there will be a transformation.

 

How big is infininity?

Ape of man say's .. God is still counting.

[Royston]

There was nervousness and discouragement at the Strings 05 conference in Toronto last summer. Interesting video online of a panel discussion of the future prospects. Get the link if you want.

 

String research output numbers have been declining for several years and the numbers of highly cited papers crashed.

 

Thanks Martin, I'll be sure to check the conference out.

 

I had a sneaky suspicion string-theory was losing popularity, IIRC there were some new findings concerning dark-matter which threw a spanner in the works to. Though the details were too technical for me to understand why this was so. I've been too busy with study to of followed recent developments in physics, and although it'll be a while before I can understand any technicalities, it's good to get a flavour of which direction we're heading, and what theories are gaining a good reputation.

 

Sorry for going off topic, GrandmasterK.

[mr d]

hello

 

the universe is many of areas where larger amounts of energy has collected along with accompaning energy that has been converted to matter, not fully explained way.

surrounded by enormous areas of less energy and matter, such as matter, dark matter, sub atomic matter (quarks etc...), and energy (light, gamma rays, radiation, etc...). which though referred to as empty space is far from being so.

 

mr d

[GrandMasterK]

Woo, been awhile.

 

Are there any theories or names for the study of absolutes/constants?

 

For instance im curious on whether or not you could say that for all that is and isnt, beyond the universe, that there has to be a tip, a single point at the top of the pyramid of everything, the one constant, that is absolute. Something beyond energy though, something that encompasses things beyond the physical, where everything and nothing can find it's place under this single thing. The theory goes that the energy in the universe has existed forever? Never adding or subtracting, just changing, using itself, never dying out? Like opposites, 0 and 1, A and B, yes and no, positive and negative, particles and anti-particles. Are there any studies that suggest for those to exist there has to be, a tip of the pyramid, a single point, a constant. Something that energy falls under. For some reason it just feels wrong to me that energy be the one to be timeless because it just feels like the only thing that should be the constant is the thing that can do everything and nothing. Maybe im wrong because im not an expert but it seems to me like energy can't do everything.

 

I'm not suggesting anything because I dont have enough knowledge to make an accurate theory, I just would like to read something or anything that talks about that kind of stuff. The one thing, that has no bounds, it's infinite in every way possible. I just dont seem to be able to accept the fact that something or someone will never be able to work around the way the universe works. They say lightspeed will never be broken and yet in my bones I feel with absolute certainty without a doubt, that it can and will be done. It's not wishful thinking, as I wont be around to enjoy it anyway, but for some reason no matter what anybody says no matter what hawkings or einstein or anybody says, the certainty remains. I'm not sure why that is.

 

I also feel like if we can take care of ourselves and develop and evolve, that one day, most likely billions of years from now, but one day, we no longer work on the universe's shift, it works on our shift. And that by denying it and refusing to let our minds open up and wrap around new ways of thinking, we delay those possibilities.

 

I dont know why, like an emotion, that I feel that the only thing that is impossible is something being impossible, it's just hardwired into my system. Smart people dont seem to be able to shake that out of me. Wisom? Insanity? Ignorance? Evolution saying "hey we need to keep these guys guessing or their gonna off themselves"? Knock in the head when I was 9?

 

 

I dont need a god. That I have been given the ability to think and postulate the place I have been temporarly thrown into without being able to figure out a damn thing, with 2 sides of a coin and nothing but contradictions for contradictions. Heck, that's good enough for me. I stand as good a chance in heaven as a porn mag anyway.