# What is Space made of?

## Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, YhwhRael said:

The universe is an atom.

The atoms of your body are universes.

!

Moderator Note

This is not the place for conjecture; responses should be mainstream science.

This could be discussed in speculations, but you will need a lot more support than just a bald assertion.

• Replies 347
• Created

#### Posted Images

are disscussing the blackness or the most common material in the universe

for 1

it has to be something as it sucks all light and is therefore invisible and this is the observable universe and only incompasses things visible so no invisible thing exept air  as we know it exists so we can  observe it with technologigy  and with that definition space (nothingness and there fore something)  is an unknown object that has to exist

for 2

unknown as there might be an infinitely abundant object we don't know about but in the observable universe  its would be the same as one  nothing yet some thing

A physics Doofus

##### Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Albert Einstine said:

are disscussing the blackness or the most common material in the universe

for 1it has to be something as it sucks all light and is therefore invisible and this is the observable universe and only incompasses things visible so no invisible thing exept air  as we know it exists so we can  observe it with technologigy  and with that definition space (nothingness and there fore something)  is an unknown object that has to exist

Space doesn't "suck light". The reason empty space cannot be seen is because there is nothing (or not enough) to reflect light.

There are plenty of things that are "invisible" (as transparent) as air.

Space is not an object, it is just the measure of distance between things.

Quote

for 2

unknown as there might be an infinitely abundant object we don't know about but in the observable universe  its would be the same as one  nothing yet some thing

We now very well from theory and observation that the commonest element in the universe is hydrogen. It make up about 95% of the universe.

Quote

A physics Doofus

You can say that again.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...
On ‎27‎-‎7‎-‎2017 at 7:11 AM, Mordred said:

Your last post will be extremely difficult to explain under the holographic principle and how CFT would treat the Kondo effect.  I guess the only way is to first clear up what is meant by ADS/CFT ..anti_Desitter/conformal field theory.  This very title has tremendous mathematical meaning and encompasses a range of models. Then in order to tie that in with Kondo cutoffs under conformal theory I need to explain the coordinate transformations for the holographic surface under the Penrose diagrams. All this before we can reasonably be on the same page...lol. Note hadn't gotten to entanglement yet..

OK lets start with Anti Desitter spacetimes. Well in essence an anti-Desitter spacetime is one where the curvature term is negative.   Guage transformations anticommute rather than commute.

this wiki covers enough of the basics but in essence its a negative curvature with a cosmological constant.  Under ADS/CFT this is your boson fields.  Now conformal is rather tricky to explain under the above.  What is conformal well conformal is the transformations that leaves the size of the angles between corresponding curves unchanged. Which differs significantly to scalar transformations. Well lets just jump to conformal geometry

lets stop here for a bit let me know if you have questions on this before we approach LSZ cutoffs as applied to your holographic surface.

My apologies for taking this approach but I honestly cannot see how I can answer your last post as to how QFT handles Kondo effect as opposed to ADS/CFT treatment unless I know you understand how the two treats the geometry of spacetime. One needs to understand the guage groups, and differences in transformations and rotations. (Especially since Kondo effect uses path integrals under feyman rules. Not to mention the coordinate transforms under the differences in coordinate systems ie tortoise, Kruskal etc..

(PS. I takes a ton of preliminary work to even begin to comprehend ADS/CFT properly)

Ground state Entanglement induces negative energy density regions https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-11731-2_9 And here they find negative energy in Entanglement entropy.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.0602.pdf  This negative energy density fits with the Holographic entangled space time.(negative energy density regions hook space together)

The fact that ground state entanglement induces negative energy density fits with the Kondo effect. The nearly 0 K (in the Kondo effect) causes the ground state and the negative energy density inhibits kinetic energy of conducting electrons.

The  Casimir effect can form negative energy density which causes an attractive force between the plates.

Edited by Itoero
##### Share on other sites

That last paper is extremely misleading in its first paragraph. The negative energy density is negative compared to a higher ground state density. specifically zero point energy

Which does not oppose GR....

##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mordred said:

That last paper is extremely misleading in its first paragraph. The negative energy density is negative compared to a higher ground state density. specifically zero point energy

Which does not oppose GR....

I did not read that, or maybe I did but didn't know the meaning. I read they find negative energy density in the entropy.  What is the energy density that's used as reference?

They find entanglement in hydrogen atoms and negative energy.https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4506?context=physics https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709052.pdf

##### Share on other sites

They set the baseline at $e=\frac{1}{2}\hbar v^2$ this is the zero point energy baseline which is a non zero value.

The above is due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle.

They set this non zero baseline as a zero baseline then for the negative $\hbar v$ state this is a negative energy density. Which is compared to the non zero, zero point energy baseline (average of HUP).

In essence it is still a positive energy density if you use a true zero baseline and not the zero point energy baseline.

This also applies to baseline treatments ie "effective mass" in solid state physics.

When you look at field equations were interested in the vectors. All your groups and tensors use vectors and spinors. So you set the baseline as the average between two charge polarities for your symmetry relations such as the Lorentzian group SO(1.3) which details the Euclidean vectors under charge/vector symmetry. Your vectors for charge will be related to the field.

You have different fields involved in the series of articles you posted with different fields involved. So apply this to each paper, however apply Dirac to the electromagnetic fields as well as the HUP.

Think of it this way any average field value can be set as a zero point. We do this all the time.

Your charge dynamics under vector charge symmetry ( ie a 180 degree change in direction or attraction/repulsion) will be applied to that effective baseline.

Effective mass is "find the (e,k) relationships/compared to the electron mass."

Here

k is the dimensionless curvature constant

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

IOW   there is such a thing as debt...
But there is no negative currency.

Negative energy/mass only arises because of 'accounting' tricks.

##### Share on other sites

Like both the sober detail from Mordred and the tongue-in-cheek soundbyte from MigL. +1 apiece.

Long may the double act continue.

##### Share on other sites

On ‎3‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 3:07 PM, MigL said:

IOW   there is such a thing as debt...
But there is no negative currency.

Negative energy/mass only arises because of 'accounting' tricks.

In 2017, researchers at Washington State University demonstrated negative effective inertial mass experimentally by cooling rubidium atoms close to 0 K with lasers.https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-negative-mass.html Negative mass contains negative energy. In the Kondo effect entanglement arises close to 0 K, which inhibits kinetic energy of conducting electrons...This shows an attraction force between the entangled electrons...which can be explained by negative energy.

.

Edited by Itoero
##### Share on other sites

Don't be fooled by what is verbally described, study the math and you will see that the quote by Migl is still correct

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

On ‎5‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 7:49 PM, Mordred said:

Don't be fooled by what is verbally described, study the math and you will see that the quote by Migl is still correct

"Push it, and unlike every physical object in the world we know, it doesn't accelerate in the direction it was pushed. It accelerates backwards" Is this not true then?

What MigL said is very unscientific. A scientist should not say negative currency doesn't exist...someone with a scientific mindset would say we have no evidence for it's existence.

##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Itoero said:

What MigL said is very unscientific. A scientist should not say negative currency doesn't exist...

How do you explain the Casmir effect ?

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How do you explain the Casmir effect ?

##### Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Itoero said:

What MigL said is very unscientific. A scientist should not say negative currency doesn't exist...someone with a scientific mindset would say we have no evidence for it's existence.

I would have thought that anyone on a scientific forum, with n understanding of science, would assume that is what was meant.

We can't hedge every single statement around with "seems", "as far as we know", "is not consistent with the evidence", etc

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I would have thought that anyone on a scientific forum, with n understanding of science, would assume that is what was meant.

We can't hedge every single statement around with "seems", "as far as we know", "is not consistent with the evidence", etc

Ok, But why is the rubidium fluid not real negative mass?

##### Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Ok, But why is the rubidium fluid not real negative mass?

Because rubidium atoms have (positive) mass. They can be made to behave as if they had negative mass. In the same way a hole (absence of an electron) has an effective mass even though it doesn't exist.

And, MigL was right, there is no such thing as negative currency.

##### Share on other sites

It is negative mass COMPARED to the e(k) of the field strength. Which is a positive field strength.

This is what I meant by look at the math itself.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It is negative mass COMPARED to the e(k) of the field strength. Which is a positive field strength.

This is what I meant by look at the math itself.

Ok but what about the backwards accelerating?

Perhaps this a reference problem. There is no reason to think what we call negative mass is -. It can be just mass that behaves like it's negative. Negative effective mass. Bu this doesn't change the negative currency.

Edited by Itoero
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Ok but what about the backwards accelerating?

Think of buoyancy as an analogy: as air pressure pushes down on a balloon (or beer pushes down on a bubble) it rises rather than being pushed down. Because it has less mass than the background "field" (atmosphere/beer).

Edited by Strange
##### Share on other sites

excellent analagy highly accurate,

##### Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

excellent analagy highly accurate,

Thank you. Praise, indeed!

##### Share on other sites

I too like Strange's analogy +1

I also note some unnamed member voted me a -1 for giving two other members positive feedback.

Stand up and be counter Sir or Madam.

##### Share on other sites

Well I don't agree with that, so I will upvote it

##### Share on other sites

Questions

How would a quantum black hole compare with a big black hole? Can it absorb and emit radiation in the same way suggested by Hawking.

Is space at the quantum level still viewed as smooth or can it be viewed as an unstable system, occasionally breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics and popping a particle into existence, via wave interactions.?

At the quantum level could a black hole be the cause of entanglement, like a wormhole. ? Should quantum black holes be viewed as wormholes or as bodies with high mass.?

## Create an account

Register a new account