The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the true nature of 'space'?  (Read 3151 times)

Offline RTCPhysics

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
What is the true nature of 'space'?
« on: 24/09/2015 11:06:18 »
If you have come across the word ‘reify’ before, you can skip this paragraph. If you haven’t, it is defined in the dictionary as follows:  “To regard or treat an abstraction, as if it had a concrete or material existence.” Probably, like me, your first thought is about fundamental religious beliefs, such as the existence of a ‘supreme being’. But as scientists, we too have fundamental beliefs embedded in our theories of physics. This article deals with the true nature of ‘space’.

The analysis starts with an everyday experiment which we all carry out and it works every time! Whether you are tied to a planet by gravity or floating free of it in space, there is nothing that stops you from being able to move through the space around you, given the necessary locomotive power and that there are no barriers of matter in the way. And the simple reason that you can perform this experiment again and again successfully is because ‘space’ doesn’t have a physical presence. It is only created by the presence of matter. Sounds a simplistic statement, but it is true and only dismissible because we have grown to ‘reify’ space by giving it a ‘concrete or material existence’ of its own.
 
So if space doesn’t exist, then it cannot be created. It can only be the result of a material structure being built which incorporates spaces within it. Looked at another way, space is infinite in all directions, simply because it doesn’t have a material presence of its own. This brings us to the start of the universe more colloquially called the ‘Big Bang’. The expansion of the universe from its infinitesimally small point is not creating a symmetrically based 'sphere of space' around itself. It can only be constructing a network or lattice of material particles that create enclosed spaces. The particle that could meet this requirement, has been called the ‘WIMP’, standing for Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. And the search is on all over the world, with complex experiments being devised to find out if it really exists.

If it does exist, then we are all living within a universal network of minute particles, oblivious to their existence, but a network that is continually being expanded, enclosing more space as it goes. Where the energy comes from to constantly create these particles and expand the network is currently a mystery, but it is being called ‘Dark Energy’ and the particles themselves, ‘Dark Matter’.
 
What is possible with the existence of a universal network or lattice of particles, is the ability to create ‘quantum gravity’ from the displacement of the lattice particles by the formation of matter within the lattice.

If so, then the mainstream theory of gravity, based upon Einstein’s abstract concept of ‘space-time’, is likely to come up for re-appraisal. But we are not there yet.


 

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #1 on: 24/09/2015 11:31:18 »
Einstein wrote:

"Generalising we must say this:- There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski's idiom this is expressed as follows:- Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of world-threads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real."

I think sums it up..

Yeah there probably is some fundamental ether 'particle' but we cannot ascribe time or motion to it and hence will never be able to perceive it.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #2 on: 25/09/2015 23:56:10 »
If you have come across the word ‘reify’ before, you can skip this paragraph. If you haven’t, it is defined in the dictionary as follows:  “To regard or treat an abstraction, as if it had a concrete or material existence.” Probably, like me, your first thought is about fundamental religious beliefs, such as the existence of a ‘supreme being’. But as scientists, we too have fundamental beliefs embedded in our theories of physics. This article deals with the true nature of ‘space’.

The analysis starts with an everyday experiment which we all carry out and it works every time! Whether you are tied to a planet by gravity or floating free of it in space, there is nothing that stops you from being able to move through the space around you, given the necessary locomotive power and that there are no barriers of matter in the way. And the simple reason that you can perform this experiment again and again successfully is because ‘space’ doesn’t have a physical presence. It is only created by the presence of matter. Sounds a simplistic statement, but it is true and only dismissible because we have grown to ‘reify’ space by giving it a ‘concrete or material existence’ of its own.
 
So if space doesn’t exist, then it cannot be created. It can only be the result of a material structure being built which incorporates spaces within it. Looked at another way, space is infinite in all directions, simply because it doesn’t have a material presence of its own. This brings us to the start of the universe more colloquially called the ‘Big Bang’. The expansion of the universe from its infinitesimally small point is not creating a symmetrically based 'sphere of space' around itself. It can only be constructing a network or lattice of material particles that create enclosed spaces. The particle that could meet this requirement, has been called the ‘WIMP’, standing for Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. And the search is on all over the world, with complex experiments being devised to find out if it really exists.

If it does exist, then we are all living within a universal network of minute particles, oblivious to their existence, but a network that is continually being expanded, enclosing more space as it goes. Where the energy comes from to constantly create these particles and expand the network is currently a mystery, but it is being called ‘Dark Energy’ and the particles themselves, ‘Dark Matter’.
 
What is possible with the existence of a universal network or lattice of particles, is the ability to create ‘quantum gravity’ from the displacement of the lattice particles by the formation of matter within the lattice.

If so, then the mainstream theory of gravity, based upon Einstein’s abstract concept of ‘space-time’, is likely to come up for re-appraisal. But we are not there yet.


Space always existed and was never created. Infinite negative space is full of infinite positive energy, when considering space, do not forget to mention the physical presence of radiation, when you move about, your moving through energy,you are submerged in energy. 
« Last Edit: 25/09/2015 23:57:51 by Thebox »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #3 on: 26/09/2015 02:52:46 »
Quote from: Thebox
Space always existed and was never created.
You're quite wrong. Space was created when the universe was created at the big bang. I've told you that many times. Simply claiming that its wrong is not a valid argument.
 

Offline RTCPhysics

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #4 on: 26/09/2015 11:09:52 »
Einstein wrote:

"what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real."

I think sums it up..

Yeah there probably is some fundamental ether 'particle' but we cannot ascribe time or motion to it and hence will never be able to perceive it.

Einstein clearly believes in his 'general theory of relativity' as a means of explaining the phenomenon of gravity, which enabled him to predict gravitational waves and the bending of light around large bodies of matter. This, I believe, is his starting point for this article and the final statement quoted above.

However, the existence of a lattice of WIMP particles can also give rise to a new and 'quantum' theory of gravity, explain gravitational waves and the bending of light around large bodies of matter. So if they are real, they lead to a rival and, in my view, a more believable explanation of these phenomenon than his 'general theory of relativity', which is based upon his abstract concept of 'space-time'. If you are of the persuasion that 'time' and 'spatial dimensions' are simply measuring gauges invented by humans for human purposes, then the existence of the 'WIMP' is the better option.

On the other hand, many iconic experiments have been done which support Einstein's special theory of relativity,  such as flying atomic clocks both ways around the world and measuring the decay time of muons travelling through our atmosphere.

However, since Einstein's 'hay day' in the 1900's, science has taken huge leaps in its knowledge, from smashing particles together at near light speeds, creating stupefingly high temperatures with lasers and generating unimaginably large magnetic pulses, my bet is upon our experimenters detecting the WIMP particle.

But you may be right to stick with Einstein's philosophy. Only 'time' will tell!
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Thanked: 58 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #5 on: 29/09/2015 22:57:14 »
Quote
Yeah there probably is some fundamental ether 'particle' but we cannot ascribe time or motion to it and hence will never be able to perceive it.

So you are saying if you ascribe time or motion to wimps (ether particle) the MMX would have a null hypothesis?
 

Offline RTCPhysics

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #6 on: 02/10/2015 12:49:55 »
An insight springs to mind that there could well be a link between the WIMP particle and the Higgs particle. The Higgs particle is classified as a boson and the same is expected to be true for the WIMP particle. So are they one and the same particle? If so then the WIMP particle or ‘Dark Matter’ has already been discovered!
 
To save re-writing well known background material on the LHC, I’ve taken this quote from the EXTREME TECH website. But I believe that its content is material to the perception that the ‘Higgs particle’ and the ‘WIMP particle’ are one and the same particle.

“On March 14, 2013 CERN officially announced the confirmation of the Higgs boson. So what’s next for the God particle? Well, the LHC just recently reopened with significant upgrades, and has an eye to look into everything from antimatter to dark energy. Dark matter is thought to interact with regular matter solely through the medium of gravity — and by creating mass, the Higgs boson could be crucial to understanding exactly how. The main failing of the Standard Model is that it cannot account for gravity — one that could do so, would be called a Grand Unified Theory”

If the Higgs and the WIMP are one and the same particle, with the Higgs boson the medium of energy exchange between the Higgs particles, then the Higgs does not give rise to mass through the medium of gravity, but it is the formation of fermions: protons, neutrons and electrons, that give rise to gravity through their displacement of the Higgs particle lattice. Hence every fermion particle creates its 'own gravity' around itself, just by its existence and its displacement of the Higgs particle lattice and hence can be said to have been 'given mass'.*
 
So if the WIMP does not need to be discovered and we already know its identity as the Higgs particle, which is located at the nodal points of a universal structured lattice of particles and whose presence creates gravity around new and existing particles, we have our sort after “Grand Unified Theory”. And what is more it is ‘Quantum Gravity’.

* For a more detailed description of this concept of a universal particle lattice creating gravity, please read my post of 06/06/2015, entitled: “Is a particle lattice theory an explanation of gravity?”
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Thanked: 58 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #7 on: 02/10/2015 15:26:33 »
While i will take the time to read you position right of the bat the lattice seems the same as the Aether position which was considered unlikely by the MMX.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #8 on: 02/10/2015 16:26:25 »
In my opinion  the nature of space can only be defined by our history and completely forgetting that we know any science. A time where science did not exist as science, but existed of that we call religion.
Early religion was psuedo science, creation a science with little knowledge.

The word space probably did not even exist in the context of beyond our atmosphere. I would perceive that word space is derived by the word God, and early thinkers called space God, the comparison is to close to be anything else.
People recognised that for something to exist, without space it could not exist, i.e without god nothing can exist, space can not be destroyed, i.e immortal like god,
god is all around us i.e so is space.
we are built in gods image . i.e reflections.
Imagine you know nothing of now how would you perceive space?
The true nature of space is to be a divider , not only  does it define a divider in the sense of separating mass, it also divides the masses, meaning population.



« Last Edit: 02/10/2015 16:28:05 by Thebox »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #9 on: 02/10/2015 16:27:49 »
Quote from: RTCPhysics
Einstein clearly believes in his 'general theory of relativity' as a means of explaining the phenomenon of gravity, which enabled him to predict gravitational waves and the bending of light around large bodies of matter. This, I believe, is his starting point for this article and the final statement quoted above.
That is a misconception.
Quote
The purpose of Einstein's new theory has often been misunderstood, and it is criticized as a attempt to explain gravity. The theory does not offer any explanation of gravitation; that lies outside its scope, and does not even hint at a possible mechanism. It is true that we have introduced a definite hypothesis as to the relation between gravity and a distortion in space; but if that explains anything, it explains not gravitation, but space, i.e. the scaffolding constructed from our measures. - A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36.

Note: In case anybody asks me why I quote someone when I could just as easily explain it myself, the answer is that what I quote comes from published sources which have been proof read. They don't contain any grammatical or spelling errors. They're also much better worded than I find that I can accomplish. That's why I prefer to quote people like I did here. Please understand that it's not that I don't understand it. But it's also true that when people see something in writing by an expert in the field they are less likely to think there's a mistake in what's quoted.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2015 12:14:58 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline RTCPhysics

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #10 on: 03/10/2015 08:13:04 »
While I will take the time to read your position, right off the bat, the lattice seems the same as the Aether position which was considered unlikely by the MMX.

As I understand it, the hypothesis that led to the iconic MMX experiment was that if an aether existed, then the movement of the earth through the aether would create an ‘aether wind’ in the opposite direction to the earth’s movement. The outcome was negative and it didn’t matter which direction the apparatus was orientated in, the two beams arrived simultaneously. But that didn’t mean that the aether did not exist.

If my memory serves me correctly, a more sophisticated version of the MMX, was created, to pass the split light beam through two tubes at right angles to each other, but with water running against the beam in one direction and with the beam in the other direction. But again with a null result. For this to happen the light photons must have travelled through both tubes of water at the same constant velocity (albeit more slowly), independent of the movement of the water. Hence the null results for both MMX experiments.

The assumption behind the MMX experiments was that velocities are additive, which is true for ‘bodies of matter’, but not true for the photon. Light emitted from a light source which is travelling at a constant speed is emitted in all directions at the same velocity. This is because the light source does not sense its own constant movement but functions as if it were ‘at rest’, just in the same way that we can’t sense our earth’s orbital and spin velocities and function as if we were 'at rest'.*

So the MMX experiments did not disprove the existence of the aether, nor any other inherent structure of space.
 
* Please refer to my post titled “The true nature if time?” posted on 16/09/2015 for a clearer explanation of this 'at rest' concept.
 

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #11 on: 05/10/2015 10:57:14 »
The MMX experiment was most certainly a bit of a dumb experiment since the principle of the aether is that is has no motion so how would 'aether wind' pattern be achieved.. so dumb experiment with a dumb conclusion and dumb connection with trying to argue against a disprovable theory.

IF I said there is a magic dragon that only showed itself to me when others weren't looking or measuring.. (I would be locked up in an asylum).. trying any measures to disprove there wasn't a dragon by measuring or looking is a dumb idea. how much money was wasted in this dumb experiment?

They would have a stronger case if they HAD found something I suppose.. so can't blame them for trying.

But when a theory states that there may be something without mass or motion that holds no energy (meaning it is practically impossible to detect) in the universe.. going out trying to detect it is a bit of a nonsensical thing to do especially when you then say.. 'we never found anything so this is false!'.. whereas its their understanding of the principle that is false
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Thanked: 58 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #12 on: 10/10/2015 17:56:34 »
I would have to agree. There are limits to what can be proven or dis-proven within the confines of results.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #13 on: 10/10/2015 23:19:07 »
Consider densely packed matter/energy such as before the big bang. If there is any 'space' at all within this dense lump then it is negligible. Then something (unknown) starts to expand the matter/energy. This has to result in voids appearing within the lump. These have not come from somewhere 'outside' this lump and therefore, if we consider this to be space, it has been created. If we then consider the voids to be the vacuum then the energy of the vacuum may also have been created at the same time. While this sounds a bit off the wall consider that the vacuum is said to be filled with fluctuations that are not real particles but virtual ones. So that the energy created is simply in the form ripples in the fabric of the vacuum. Since energy is related to wavelength and frequency then all that has been said is that an expanding dense mass causes ripples in the fabric of space. Which it has itself created.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Thanked: 58 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #14 on: 11/10/2015 14:01:22 »
A wave has to be on something. Virtual something suggests something from nothing while we know energy is something (photon).
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #15 on: 11/10/2015 22:56:36 »
What do you suggest?
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Thanked: 58 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #16 on: 12/10/2015 13:22:03 »
Energy may reside in space. We have kinetic and potential energy. Kinetic transfers motion mass to mass. Potential energy of say a gravity well is considered a negative energy potential that resides in the center of mass. What if we have a dual system where mass and energy are two separate but connected entities. The connection might be the electrons in mass being moved by the ether energy. This would have to be a Ether style arrangement that actually cause motion itself. While Einstein suggested space-time is not ponderable mass we keep using the term virtual photon. Rather than a photon particle moving through space, could energy transfer be a wave on photons (energy) being transferred until the wave becomes uniform again. This might be accomplished by transferring its wave to mass as radiation. The entire spectrum might be a resistance to the motion of mass. Causing an energy wave on the ether (dark mass energy?).

Very speculative on my part.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2015 13:25:23 by GoC »
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #17 on: 14/10/2015 17:14:29 »
I have my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, in which the cosmic foam (galaxy clusters surrounding voids) of our universe IS the aether foam of the next larger-scale universe (our super-universe), and the aether foam of our universe IS the cosmic foam of a smaller-scale universe (our sub-universe).

Based on a wild guess, (gotta start somewhere) I propose that the median volume of an aether-foam bubble is the Planck volume (4.22419×10105 m3). In other words, half the volume of any region of space is occupied by aether-foam bubbles smaller than the Planck volume, and half by larger bubbles. Another starting assumption is that the Planck volume remains constant despite the expansion of space.

As our space expands, the volume of our cosmic-foam bubbles increases. The galaxy clusters that form the walls of that expanding bubble are therefore stretched across the increasing surface area of the bubble. There comes a time when this stretching exceeds the material strength of the bubble wall, and POP! It may take billions of years to this "pop" to transpire. The net result of a popping bubble wall (from our perspective) is one less cosmic-foam bubble in our universe. From a super-universe perspective, the number of those bubbles has increased by one, adding one super-universe Planck volume to our super-universe. In other words, the arrow of time reverses from one universe to the next.

Our space expands because the number of aether-foam bubbles per cubic meter is constant, but those bubbles are un-popping; i.e.,  popping in reverse time due to expansion of sub-universe space in reverse time. So expanding space in each universe, together with time reversal from one universe to the next, perpetuates the expansion of space to all such universes.

The expansion of space generates dark energy, which consists of aethereal pressure waves.

Each time a cosmic-foam bubble pops, pressure waves are produced. For simplicity sake, imagine a a sea of cubic bubbles. One square bubble wall pops; the molecules (or galaxies) near the initial point of the rupture accelerate toward the edges, gaining energy and momentum, which is conserved by waves radiating in the plane of the ruptured bubble wall. These waves compress the galaxies closer together before finding a new equilibrium state. (Numerous galaxy collision also occur.) So positive-going pressure waves radiate outward.

Due to the removal of forces pulling the edges of the ruptured bubble wall toward the middle, the edges end up farther from the rupture point. Stresses in the surrounding bubble walls then pull the ends of newly joined pair of bubbles closer together. Where there had been two cubic bubbles, you now have one bubble which occupies the space of two truncated pyramids. Drawing the ends of this bubble closer together generates a pair of negative-going pressure waves radiating perpendicular to the ruptured bubble wall. Such pressure waves are generated, whether the bubbles are cubic or random.

If we could match our velocity to the preferred reference frame in which the aether is stationary, and look thru a magical Planck microscope, we would see dark-energy pressure waves converging to a point where they cause sub-universe galaxies to rearrange themselves into a new bubble wall. We would be watching a bubble pop in reverse time; i.e. un-popping.

Each time one of our aether-foam bubbles un-pops, a Planck volume of new space is added to our universe. This happens approximately 1088 times per second per cubic meter, which yields the present value of the Hubble expansion.

Dark energy pressure waves propagate at least 2 x 1010 times faster than light, which consists of aethereal shear waves. The speed of dark energy is the speed of gravity as well as the speed of electrostatic force and all the other fundamental forces.

The ultimate source of aethereal shear waves is this: Near the Planck scale, the aether's density is somewhat lumpy. As a dark-energy pressure wave passes thru one of those lumps, the lump is moved out of its equilibrium position, and shear forces in the surrounding medium pull it back. This generates shear waves (photons) perpendicular to the path of the pressure wave.

Subsequently, other pressure waves collide with the shear waves, and there is an exchange of momentum between them. The quantity of exchanged momentum is a function of the angle between the pressure wave's path and the plane of the shear wave's polarity. Consequently, the dark energy flux is perturbed by the presence of a shear wave in a pattern which is symmetrical relative to a plane, rather than spherical symmetry.

The dark energy flux arriving at one shear wave is influenced by the presence of another shear wave. Consequently, there are forces of attraction or repulsion between the two shear waves, depending on the orientation of their planes of polarity relative to one another. This is the ultimate source of all the forces of nature.

One of those attractive forces (not yet known to science; perhaps related to zero-point energy) is responsible for holding two or more shear waves (photons) in orbit around one another. When free photons become locked in orbit around one another, their energy (plus some zero point energy) is converted to proper mass of the particle thus formed.

The orbiting photons continue to perturb the dark-energy flux as they did when free, but now that flux disturbance is being spun into a precessing spiral pattern. The spiraling flux disturbances of neighboring particles may mesh like gears to form larger particles. At greater distances, the precessing spirals become indistinguishable from spherically symmetrical fields, and we get the familiar inverse-square forces, including gravity.

I suspect that gravity is an imbalance in the net effect of all those spiraling flux disturbances due to the expansion of space. No clue how to demonstrate that mathematically.

Particles pass thru the aether as easily as photons because particles ARE photons. There is no reason to suppose that matter drags the aether.

There is a preferred reference frame which is stationary relative to the aether. Our only clue, as far as I know, about our velocity relative to that reference frame is the blueshift of the CMB in the direction of Virgo. This suggest that we are moving toward Virgo at roughly 500 km/s. A fixed particle of the aether passes thru planet Earth, and Earth thru it, in about 24 seconds.

Three key unknown parameters to my model:
  • inertial density of aether
  • compression modulus of aether
  • shear modulus of aether
Applying the formulas of acoustics, we could calculate the speed of gravity and speed of light, if we knew those values.

The aether is extremely dense and extremely hard and stiff. For all I know, a sub-universe galaxy may have as much inertia as a comparable galaxy in our universe. A Planck volume of aether might have as much inertia as a supercluster of galaxies. If so, that would make it unlikely that anything in our universe could ever rip the fabric of space-time.

 

Offline RTCPhysics

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #18 on: 23/11/2015 12:29:51 »
I have my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, in which the cosmic foam (galaxy clusters surrounding voids) of our universe IS the aether foam of the next larger-scale universe (our super-universe), and the aether foam of our universe IS the cosmic foam of a smaller-scale universe (our sub-universe).

I am not a supporter of the concept of multiple universes, but your ‘Fractal Foam Model of Universes’ is certainly novel. It relies upon many assumptions, which cannot be proved or disproved. The fact that I’m not a supporter of the concept is therefore neither here nor there, as there is no concrete evidence that I can put forward to justify my stance. So keep up the creativity.

The only work that I’ve come across in this field, which interested me and may already be of interest to you, has been done by Universities in Canada, America and Europe, where they have created models the Universe as we see it. They have produced surprisingly realistic pictures of a universe with clusters of galaxies containing both spherical and spiral patterns and initially give you the impression that they are the real thing.

They start from the ‘big bang’ and develop over time, but what the detailed assumptions are behind the formation of stars and galaxies, I don’t know, but they must somehow use the knowledge that we have of atomic theory behind the creation of fundamental particles and the elements. (They may also use fractal theory in the early stages of particle, element and star formation.) A useful aspect of their computer models, is that they enable you to track back upon how the processes developed from the ‘big bang’ and understand why the picture of the universe developed as it did and presumably where it might end up! But that brings us into your field of multiple universes.

 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Thanked: 58 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #19 on: 25/11/2015 13:06:58 »
They have produced surprisingly realistic pictures of a universe with clusters of galaxies containing both spherical and spiral patterns and initially give you the impression that they are the real thing.

They all start with mass already existing. Can we ever get around that point of a beginning? We know our sun creates higher atomic weight atoms. Is it possible that the Higgs (dark matter) is the building blocks for fusion to continually increasing our suns mass from energy?

Your ideas open up a entirely new path we can follow. I find your mind interesting.
 

Offline ernst39

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #20 on: 28/11/2015 13:32:48 »
Are space and time - as "extent" and "duration" - elements of nature or are it elements of our thinking about nature?
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #21 on: 30/11/2015 17:35:13 »
Are space and time - as "extent" and "duration" - elements of nature or are it elements of our thinking about nature?

Mathematical/virtual space and time are constructs of our minds. They have evolved as we seek to eliminate perceived discrepancies between our mathematical virtual universe and the physical universe in which our bodies and brains seem to exist.

We take a shapshot of a patch of deep space and feed it to a computer which calculates what virtual galaxies in our virtual space-time could be responsible for the image that appears in our telescopes, given a long list of assumptions about the equivalence of our virtual space-time and the physical space-time in which our telescopes exist.

There will always be discrepancies between our virtual universes and the real one in which we exist. We can't know everything.
« Last Edit: 30/11/2015 17:37:15 by Phractality »
 

Offline ernst39

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #22 on: 30/11/2015 19:11:22 »
Mathematical/virtual space and time are constructs of our minds.

I agree: space is a mental construction conceived to express "spatial" characteristics (extent, form, ...) of objects and "spatial" relationships (distance, direction, ...) between them;  and time is a mental construction conceived to express the duration of phenomena and to date events.

Its mental character implies that space-time only can play a passive role in physics, what doesn't exclude that it can be modeled in order to efficently describe (not explain) certain phenomena and processes.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #23 on: 01/12/2015 03:00:41 »
A wave has to be on something. Virtual something suggests something from nothing while we know energy is something (photon).
Wrong.......................The photon possesses energy, it is not correct to label the photon as energy.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #24 on: 01/12/2015 08:15:13 »
Space is the nothing between somethings. Deep space is anywhere a long way from anything that matters. "Long" and "matters" depend on context.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is the true nature of 'space'?
« Reply #24 on: 01/12/2015 08:15:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums