What is space made of?

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Your personal standpoint does not matter. Nor is it a scientific one.. The point has to be taken from physics, not your personal understanding of physics.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> and somehow only your perspective does matter?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Interstellar space contains about 1 proton/cu. m. It can be reduced to even less than that and enclosed so virtually no photons or energy of any kind of intrude. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> There is zero chance of escaping reality, and a container most definitely is not a step closer.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yet that space would still have all the characteristics of space/time.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> That's because you can't remove this reality. <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Matter/energy are not necessary for the existence of space.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> They are space/time.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The fields are, and those are not turned on/off by whether or not there is matter/energy around. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> The fields are the matter and energy. I prefer to call them extentions of matter, or energy. You could remove from a container what I call the foci of matter, but not their extentions (otherwise known as gravity).<br /><br />I'll say it again with confidence - If matter and or energy did not exist, space would not exist.<br /> <br />

 

[aetherius]

How would space be characterized at the instant the universe began?<br /><br />If the initial state of the universe can be described as a singularity of infinite density and consisting only of some phase of energy, then <b>everything</b> that exists today must be an extension/function/form of that initial energy. "Everything" must include space because space did not exist before the universe existed-space emerged alongside all known and unknown forms of energy/matter. Space emerged from within the singularity.<br /><br />If you accept this description of the initital state then I don't see how space can be anything but a phase or form of energy.<br /><br />The only other explanation that I can think of is that "space" existed before the universe expanded so that the universe expanded into a pre-existing medium that we know as space today.

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you here refer to the energy contained in matter? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> One might say that energy is a photon. I suppose when I say energy......I'm referring to a geometric construct. Same would go for a photon. Matter would be the interaction of more than one geometric entity. Sort of like two dogs chasing each others tail.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Energy is not a objetctive quantity or a "thing" if you like.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> I'd have to disagree here in that energy can be quantified and is therefore a thing.<br />

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Of course a photon is energy. And that is everything it is. We can say a photon consits of a frequency, electric and a magnetic field, but there is no leftovers when a photon has delivered its energy. There is no known container or binding energy we know of.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> It is my contention that a photons are fundamental entities, and they never lose their identity, they either lose or gain in frequency (their self interaction can vary). In other words .... They don't go poof to Non-Existence. This would negate it's entire purpose, which is the definition of Non-Existence. Photons to me are the geometric constructs of nothing at all, and we live by way of interaction of these fundamental geometric entities. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The CMBR has lost large amounts of relative energy. This is not because it has leaked out of the photons somehow, it is simply because its background has streched. From this I conclude that the photon is not an isolated thing, but an imprint in space itself.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>The background radiation loses frequency through interaction. It will never IMO fail to self interact at any lower frequency. It can be characterized as a thing by it's form, which I most definitely consider it to have. <br /><br /><br />

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The CMBR photons does not lose energy (frequency) through interaction. It simply lose energy because space gets bigger. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Thats the accepted theory. I just don't currently buy this. Especially when it isn't known what space is in the first place. We are talking about pure speculation on my part and anyone elses. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What is a photons form?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This is dificult to explain, and perhaps more dificult to draw from what my idea of it is.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A singel photon can, at this moment, exist both in your eye and in my eye at the same time before it is detected in one of the two eyes. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> I would agree here. I have a postulate that all that exist must have form. This means that the photon that can exist in both your eyes and mine is a rather large form, wouldn't you think? In fact you could be on Mars and we could be sharing the same photon. You could even be in another galaxy and this would hold true.

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is fascinating to me that this discussion of "space" has focussed down to photons. [And energy-matter] <br /><br />I think space and photons are very much concomitant. If one can understand, or imagine, photons, one is a long way toward envisioning space. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> My thought is that a photon is to be regarded as a geometric form, and that is all there is. There can be no other forms lest you combine these forms like that of matter, wherein matter represents a localization of photons, and we can have the form of a planet through the combination of matter wherein matter is localized. The common denominator is form (a geometric construct). Space is actually no different. It is constructed of geometric forms that can share the same space. At least thats my rendition.

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So..your one of the "tired light" guys?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No - Light never gets tired. It can lose frequency and gain frequency, but never lose frequency altogether.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Or what theory is your platform?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> In regards to what space is made of - Geometric representations of nothing at all, but so is matter. There really is no difference between space and matter in this regard. All one needs to do is come to an understanding about the distribution of these geometric entities through interaction. Matter is the localization of the foci of geometric entities through interaction, while space is the extension of those foci. <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Do you favour the Fred Hoyle view? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> There are no views that are like mine.<br />

 

[siarad]

Not thought about this before but am now worried.<br />Has the CMBR temperature reduced cos there's less whatever per unit volume or cos wavelengths have been stretched. Yes I know they're really the same but I'm interested in how temperature is measured i.e. taking heat per unit volume or frequency. In which case how is frequency related to heat as opposed to temperature. My soldering iron has a constant temperature but a variable heat output.

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So..what is the mecanism that makes light gain or lose its frequency (energy) in space regarding your hypothesis? <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> The mechanism is interaction. A geometric unit will interact with another. They pass through one another to effect. It's not much different than two gears in interaction, although the interaction is not physical in nature.

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Could you please elaborate a little closer how this geometric interaction is supposed to work? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> I'll try a billiard ball analogy. We all understand how the balls deflect when they hit each other. In this particular case we have a form and the deflection of the balls is dependent on angles. My scenerio is a bit diffeerent in that the balls are capable of passing through each other, and we are not dealing with mass as a role player. It's all about form and the angles by which these forms interact.<br /><br />Now here is where it gets a bit complicated. My billiard balls are not round, they could start out round, but they aren't now. I'm speaking of particles in that it is made up of fundamental geometric entities that interact.<br /><br />Unfortunately I'm off to work. I'll try some detail later.

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What we persieve as space is then a gigantic matrix of quantum fields....not one field. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Chances are I will not be giving any great detail to my perception. This involves to much time and I currently don't have that time. I just picked up a bundle of software and I intend to be in that software. So my spare time is taken. The time spent here is reduced to discussion only. <br /><br />You make a suggestion that space is a collection of apparently disconnected fields. Even if there were only one particle in the universe, with those fields being somehow related to the particle. I just can't see the relation without connection. My point is that they must be. This essentially means there is only one field. If you were to make a spiral from a point, one could imagine several fields wherein there really is only one. The field in this scenerio is the fundamental geometric entities that make up this particle. <br /><br />Sorry to be in here part time, but my heart is somewhere else at this time.