[geordief (OP)]

Also (separately but because these two thoughts occurred to me around the same time) is it possible for two objects to assimilate and become one object (I understand "objects" may be embedded in and part of  the various fields)

What does that mean?

Yes,even I didn't understand that when I reread it (and I wrote it   )

Well what I was thinking of was that particles are said to be an excitation of the field.

When two particles meet  is impossible  for them to "blend" and become one particle.?

And if the particles are viewed in terms of the field they are excitation of would the field interfere with itself to that two waves in the field become one wave ,(even a standing wave)?

I think I gave due warning earlier in this thread  that I was probably talking "gibbonish",(ie nonsense) but you did ask.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Yes,even I didn't understand that when I reread it (and I wrote it   )

Well what I was thinking of was that particles are said to be an excitation of the field.

When two particles meet  is impossible  for them to "blend" and become one particle.?

And if the particles are viewed in terms of the field they are excitation of would the field interfere with itself to that two waves in the field become one wave ,(even a standing wave)?

I think I gave due warning earlier in this thread  that I was probably talking "gibbonish",(ie nonsense) but you did ask.

*   It sounds as if you're talking about  Quantum Field Theory  (QFT).

*  You asked:  When two particles meet  is impossible  it possible for them to "blend" and become one particle.?
   Answer:  Possibly.  This depends on the field and the precise mechanics or model you are using.
For example,  many of the fields are quantised and can only have certain energy states.  It's not always possible to have two lots of an excitation of the field at the same location.
   However, particles and anti-particles (something like a peak in the underlying filed and a corresponding  dip in the field)  can come together and combine but then they tend to pass their energy to another field rather than creating something in their own field.    Example:  An electron and a positron (the anti-particle of the electron) are disturbances in the electron field,  if they come together and annihilate then they create an excitation in the electromagnetic field which looks like a pair of photons, while the electron field returns to the vaccum state.

   I really wouldn't consider myself an expert in QFT, it's something I'll be reading more about soon.
Here's a short Pop Sci video  that describes annihilation in terms of Quantum Fields reasonably well (takes about 7 minutes and some people may find the presenter a bit like "marmite" - you'll either like it or hate it).  Personally, I'm not that keen on this style but the content is good and clearly explained so they can have my recommendation for whatever it is worth.

Best wishes.

[geordief (OP)]

   I really wouldn't consider myself an expert in QFT, it's something I'll be reading more about soon.
Here's a short Pop Sci video  that describes annihilation in terms of Quantum Fields reasonably well (takes about 7 minutes and some people may find the presenter a bit like "marmite" - you'll either like it or hate it).  Personally, I'm not that keen on this style but the content is good and clearly explained so they can have my recommendation for whatever it is worth.

I am lost for words.Perhaps ,if I watch that a  few times I might retain  a little acquaintance with the subject to help me out if it ever  comes up again.

Anyway ,thanks for  showing it 

[TommyJ]

Regarding vacuum. I might just add some to the article (literal explanations).

‘Outer space’ is the 'space of the universe'. It has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation feature to vacuum’.
Observable universe is filled with large numbers of photons, the so-called cosmic background radiation, and quite likely a large number of neutrinos. The temperature of this radiation is about 3 K (−270.15 °C; −454.27 °F).
String theory is believed to have a huge number of vacua – the string theory landscape.
QED, QCD, Quantum vacuum state are different theoretical approaches to be used on the path of physical laws definitions.
Terminology. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, the Schwarzschild metric (also known as the Schwarzschild vacuum or Schwarzschild solution).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric


Regarding universe expansion.

Einstein recognized that the universe's imaginary grid wasn't fixed and wasn't absolute. Instead, it was like a fabric, and the fabric itself was curved, distorted and forced to evolve over time by the presence of matter and energy.
Alexander Friedmann showed that if you didn't add this extra cosmological constant, and you had a Universe that was filled with anything energetic (e.g. matter, radiation, dust, fluid, etc.) there were two classes of solutions: one for a contracting universe and one for an expanding universe.
The mathematics tells about the possible solutions, but you need to look to the physical universe to find which one of these describes us. Hubble was the first to discover that individual stars could be measured in other galaxies, determining their distance.
It's as though the fabric of space itself is getting stretched over time, and all the objects within that space are being dragged apart from one another. On small scales, like the scales of living creatures and below, the electromagnetic and nuclear forces dominate.

[Petrochemicals]

Subspace, or God.

[TommyJ]

Subspace, or God.

Stephen Hawking gave similar quote.
Still with technology that we have now and development speed that we have now,
there must be approach to more precise understanding. Going from literal abstractions to a set of solutions.
Maybe one day, with a new finding we will be surprised, 'why nobody thought of that [something we cannot explain now] before?'

[Petrochemicals]

Subspace, or God.

Stephen Hawking gave similar quote.
Still with technology that we have now and development speed that we have now,
there must be approach to more precise understanding. Going from literal abstractions to a set of solutions.
Maybe one day, with a new finding we will be surprised, 'why nobody thought of that [something we cannot explain now] before?'

I'm in good company then.

If there are no particles distance has no concept. The plaque on the pioneer spacecraft gives measurement directly deducable by way of atomic qualities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque#Symbolism

Perhaps in subspace there is a man/woman with is arms in an only 1 metre span encompassing the entire universe.

[yor_on]

ES, wouldn't you express the universe as a mathematical manifold? With us defining its coordinate system from relativity?

[Eternal Student]

Hi Yor_on,
   I hope you are well.

ES, wouldn't you express the universe as a mathematical manifold? With us defining its coordinate system from relativity?

   Sounds right. 
   I'm a bit lost about the context.   The discussion seems to have moved on to a new area.
Also, just to be clear, that's not my idea.   A (differentiable) manifold is the mathematical structure that underpins General Relativity and was developed by Einstein, Minkowski and others.
   I'll re-read this thread later today and see what the general context was.

Best Wishes.

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

Damaged thread
    I've read through the thread from start to end.  It was started a year ago and recently brought back to the top of the pile by someone (I'm not going to name them).   Those comments seemed harmless but generic and didn't connect well with the previous posts.   That's OK and this forum often has discussions that take sidelines.   I think most other people re-engaged with the topic using the title and the perhaps the Original Post only.
   There seems to have been one instance in another thread where the person who re-started or "bumped up" this thread was just keen to advertise some products (or "spam" this site).  With this information it now seems easier to understand why their comments were so generic - they were probably trying to raise their profile enough to post active links on the forum.  I don't know and I'm not judge and jury, it's not important.   What matters is that for the moment it doesn't seem that many people are still interested in this thread.

@yor_on  - you may be trying to answer questions and engage in discussion with someone who really wasn't interested in discussion anyway.

@geordief  -  If you still have questions or are seeking more discussion, just say something here.   I'm sorry that your thread seems to have become complicated and difficult to follow.

Additional Confusion
    I should also mention that you (Geordief)  created a reply that confused me and probably "pinged" the wrong people to respond.   Reply #40   features a quote   which  has all the header information to indicate that it was from Yor_on   however the  actual text within it looks more like something that @Colin2B  had stated.   I'm guessing that you used the quick-reply feature and then edited the quote by hand without realising that the wrong people would be notified (or not notified).

Conclusion
   Some of the early answers in this thread were already very good.
I'm not sure it's worth talking about Manifolds since I don't think anyone really wanted to know.

Best Wishes to everyone.

[yor_on]

No Es, that's not true. 'A (differentiable) manifold' is quite interesting but also rather hard to melt for those of us not used to to the nomenclature :)   I'm checking it out for the moment and I think it would be nice with a overview, maybe in another thread as this ones origin is quite old, just as you say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiable_manifold

as far as I'm concerned that is. Mathematics is what relativity builds on. Also, I'm afraid that it actually was me that Geordief answered to, although, I can't help finding it quite complimentary suggesting it was Collins :)

don't hesitate in using mathematics ES, just break it down for us if it gets too esoteric.

[geordief (OP)]

geordief  -  If you still have questions or are seeking more discussion, just say something here.   I'm sorry that your thread seems to have become complicated and difficult to follow.

Quite often ,I start a thread and ,after a few replies (if I get them) I have taken in all I can digest and so ,when others take over the thread ,so to speak I can lose interest as the conversation goes over my head

Sometimes ,as you may have observed someone can necro an old thread for perhaps not good reasons but in this case Yoron  did ask me to clarify a passage I had written earlier (yes,a long time earlier)
Of course I did my best to explain  my thinking

I don't think I accidentally misattributed  any passage as Yoron correctly quoted me in post#38 and I then answered him  in post#40.

(When I do quote anyone ,I often highlight the salient passages in the post and then look for the "quote selected" facility under the Actions tab at the top left of the post.

Simply using the "Reply" facility at the bottom of the post can imo often make for very long posts.)

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

I don't think I accidentally distributed  any passage as Yoron correctly quoted me.....

   Sorry, my fault and misunderstanding.

No Es, that's not true. 'A (differentiable) manifold' is quite interesting...

   Thanks Yor_on.  That will be one person who thinks it's interesting (or is just being polite).   I agree with you that another thread may be a better place.
- - - - - -
It's been interesting reading back through the thread from the beginning anyway.  I'm still quite new here and this thing was started before I was a member.  Thank you to everyone who has spent some time here.

Best Wishes.

[yor_on]

No Es, I'm finding it interesting. I think I might have looked at it a long time ago as I recognize some of it, but I'm definitely a layman when it comes to mathematics. https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-differentiable-manifold? contain some nice examples connecting it to a Euclidean space. It's just all those words that you don't recognize making it somewhat confusing.

[Just thinking]

Is it possible to say that the expanding/evolving universe creates "space"  as a function of itself but that it expands "into" nothingness?

Also (separately but because these two thoughts occurred to me around the same time) is it possible for two objects to assimilate and become one object (I understand "objects" may be embedded in and part of  the various fields)?

I think the deep space that is between galaxies is probably the best definition of nothingness but I'm sure that there are particles even there. If we take a lead box and it is fully sealed and suck all the air out of it what do we have only the inside walls of the box in space we have the same nothing between the particles.

[geordief (OP)]

If we take a lead box and it is fully sealed and suck all the air out of it what do we have only the inside walls of the box in space

We would have gravitational attraction between the pieces of lead  that detach themselves from the wall and the remaining walls.(and themselves)

So something is happening within the space .

[Just thinking]

    If we take a lead box and it is fully sealed and suck all the air out of it what do we have only the inside walls of the box in space

We would have gravitational attraction between the pieces of lead  that detach themselves from the wall and the remaining walls.(and themselves)

So something is happening within the space .

You make a very interesting point but then again I would expect there are different forms of radiation in the led box and throughout the whole universe so we can not escape there being something But this is the best definition for nothing now not before the big bang or whatever created everything. Mater created time and time creates mater this is the passage of reality before that there was no time no matter no empty space. As incredible as it is that there is a universe at all I think it is just as incredible if not more so that there was nothing at all but that seems to be the way it goes.

[TommyJ]

  If we take a lead box and it is fully sealed and suck all the air out of it what do we have only the inside walls of the box in space

We would have gravitational attraction between the pieces of lead  that detach themselves from the wall and the remaining walls.(and themselves)

So something is happening within the space .
You make a very interesting point but then again I would expect there are different forms of radiation in the led box and throughout the whole universe so we can not escape there being something But this is the best definition for nothing now not before the big bang or whatever created everything. Mater created time and time creates mater this is the passage of reality before that there was no time no matter no empty space. As incredible as it is that there is a universe at all I think it is just as incredible if not more so that there was nothing at all but that seems to be the way it goes.

Can be also an alternative approach.
Attempts to unify space, time, and matter beyond general relativity introduce additional interactions and extra space-time dimensions.

The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates.  It is caused by quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The vacuum contains virtual particles which are in a continuous state of fluctuation.
According to the theory, the total zero point energy in the vacuum is infinite when summed over all the possible photon modes. The Casimir effect comes from a difference of energies in which the infinities cancel.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html

[Just thinking]

Can be also an alternative approach.

It is possible that the big bang filled the remains of a previous and smaller big bang as a second big bang will have greater potential than the first. Your explanation is very interesting and very well thought out.

[emelymorris]

Non-existence is a non-existent reality, but the cosmos still exists. Of course, some people still think that the earth is flat, but there is space.