Is Space Real? The Existential Question of the Universe

[WaveJumper]

The concept of space. This thread is dedicated to the question "Is space real".

This first sentence from your statement talks of space as a concept. In this universe we deal in those things that are either real or imagined (a concept).

So far you say space is a concept.




If something can be bent in this physical universe then it has some sort of physical structure.

In your next sentence you say space can be bent, so now you are talking of space as though it is a physical thing.

Now you say space is a physical thing.






This is a great example of the total indecisiveness that people who want to describe space put forward as an answer to what space is. To sum up what you just said:


So you say space has no atomic structure in the first part of your statement, and in the rest of the statement you say that it does have a structure.



This is a classic no answer. You my friend have not answered the question "Is space real?"

It looks like you are going to have to make up your mind, pick a side. Is space a real physical thing or not? A simple Yes or No.




This "nothing" that you say is expanding, what is it expanding in? What would you call this medium that this nothing is existing and expanding in?





Wow! How profound. Someone said this. You really drove your point home with this scientific proof.

Seriously, see if you can use all of the resources available to you and come up with a definitive answer to this space question. Is space real?

I know this will hurt, but you need to change your view of "real" and "physical". Let me start by quoting Werner Heisenberg and then i'll explain my viewpoint in more detail:

"I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language."


Now if you are still comfortable with the idea of me killing your notion of reality, read on. The naive realists once thought matter was composed of indivisible chunks. With the birth of modern physics, it was found that elements aren't so elementary after all. In fact, it was determined, elements are actually made of smaller pieces called 'atoms.' With atoms, scientists figured out things that were mysteries before. Before atoms, no one really knew where heat came from; after, it was figured out that atoms move, and this motion releases energy - "Heat". Atoms were still 'stuff,' but they introduced a new view of stuff. Far from being solidly fixed in space, just sitting there, atoms were feisty little critters, always moving about. This is of serious concern to the naive realist, whose solid wall is no longer just standing there, but teeming, pulsating, moving. It certainly doesn't seem to be moving, and naive realists are certain that what seems to be, is.

Another cherished assumption atoms do away with is the idea of things separate from each other. When the scientist looks at the atomic level, there is no boundary, no absolute dividing line separating one thing from another. When my hand touches the wall, there is a point at which one cannot say whether a particular atom belongs to the wall, or to my hand. When my hand is not touching the wall, there is a point at which one cannot say whether a particular atom belongs to my hand, or the air around it. Atoms are continually joining and leaving. Our sense of smell, for example, is actually the detection of molecules floating through the air from what we are smelling. When we say that we smell a rose, if we mean (as the naive realist does) that we are actually smelling the rose, we are wrong; atoms from the rose are constantly streaming out into the air, and some of them land inside our nose. It is those atoms, which can no longer be said to be part of the rose, that we smell.

Zoom in a bit more and you'll be in for a surprise - there is more empty space than "stuff" there. In fact what you call matter is composed of 99.999% empty space where subatomic forces(electromagnetism + the strong nuclear force) form your perception of matter, solid objects and reality.

By this time, the idea of 'stuff'--especially solid, motionless stuff--is completely dead. Anything you look at has more empty space in it than stuff. I'm not even talking about space that has only air in it: air, too, is stuff that is mostly empty space. I'm talking space that has no stuff in it.

Now that you might be re-thinking your idea of "reality", "real" and "physical" we may sit down and discuss what space is made of and why string theorists think space is also composed of strings. But first we need to define the idea of our perceived reality in some way so we can try and discern its constituent parts.

From the moment you are born till the moment you are dead, you perceive this said "reality" via a mental picture. Anything and everything that will ever happen in your lifetime will be mental pictures inside your mind, giving you the impression that there is a reality out there independent of the mind. Couple that with the fact that all particles exist in superposition of eigenstates in multiple places all at once before they decohere, and you have a completely new picture of "real" and "reality". This view is called solipsism and is widespread among modern physicists who believe the universe is a projection of the mind. Now is a good time to address your question what the universe is expanding into. But something tells me by now you should already know the answer. Or else, you can stick to the commonly accepted notion that space isn't expanding into anything, as it's the only thing that exists. Whatever "exists" means in that theory.


And the final question:

It looks like you are going to have to make up your mind, pick a side. Is space a real physical thing or not? A simple Yes or No.

Space is as real and physical as anything else that you call real(that's a BIG SIMPLE YES).

But if you want to go deeper, you should ask "What is real? How do you define real?"
If you are talking about your senses, what you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about is a mental picture. And the next logical question would be - "what is the nature of the existence of this mental picture?". And here you might be treading into physicist David Bohm's territory whose theory says the whole universe is a hologram and space and the separateness of matter is merely an illusion. Thus he says, the entangled particles that seem to exchange information instantaneously over distances of tens of light years away, are not separate but are one and the same particle projected by the Holographic paradigm. The holographic principle states that space and time are not fundamental and the latest renditions of String theory all point to a holographic universe. You might want to have a look at the official site of string theory:

"This is a hint that perhaps spacetime geometry is not something fundamental in string theory, but something that emerges in the theory at large distance scales or weak coupling. This is an idea with enormous philosophical implications."

http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4.html


From wiki:

"Since its birth as the dual resonance model which described the strongly interacting hadrons as strings, the term string theory has changed to include any of a group of related superstring theories which unite them. One shared property of all these theories is the holographic principle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory



"The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

 

[john 8]

WaveJumper. You just said a lot of nothing. It was long winded and wordy.

Look, the question was "is space real". There are only two options, Yes or No. If someone asks for an elaboration on a particular response then a more in depth explanation should be provided, simple as that.

Now just imagine if the question were "is a rock real?" Don't you think that the question would be settled in very few post, and with much observational and scientific evidence to put the matter to rest?
So what is the deal with this space question? Space is either a real thing as other things that we consider to be real, or it is not a real thing but an idea or concept.


Here is what you said about space:

"Space is as real and physical as anything else that you call real(that's a BIG SIMPLE YES)."

So you think that space is as real and PHYSICAL as anything else. Really? Well a rock is real and physical, so in your understanding space is comparable to a rock? I could mention many other real physical things that are either a solid, liquid, or a gas, are you saying space is just like all of these types of things?

Come on! Be more specific. Tell us in what way space is real and physical. What is space made of? In what form does it exist?

Be specific! Be scientific!

 

[WaveJumper]

WaveJumper. You just said a lot of nothing. It was long winded and wordy.

I am sorry that you seem to have reading comprehension issues.

Look, the question was "is space real". There are only two options, Yes or No. If someone asks for an elaboration on a particular response then a more in depth explanation should be provided, simple as that.

First you have to DEFINE what is real to you. Do you understand? If the reality that you experience is real to you, then space is real. That's a Yes. Do you understand "YES"? It's the opposite of "No". So yes, space is real, like the opposite of unreal.

Now just imagine if the question were "is a rock real?" Don't you think that the question would be settled in very few post, and with much observational and scientific evidence to put the matter to rest?
So what is the deal with this space question? Space is either a real thing as other things that we consider to be real, or it is not a real thing but an idea or concept.

Space is not a concept, you are simply pushing some religious drivel. Space is a physical thing as it exists, you live in it, drive in it, you measure it, space can be bent, space can be stretched and space was CREATED at the big bang as SR says. If you want to prove SR incorrect, be my guest. You'll definitely get a noble prize, but until then your ramblings against space are just tripe.

Here is what you said about space:

"Space is as real and physical as anything else that you call real(that's a BIG SIMPLE YES)."

So you think that space is as real and PHYSICAL as anything else. Really? Well a rock is real and physical, so in your understanding space is comparable to a rock? I could mention many other real physical things that are either a solid, liquid, or a gas, are you saying space is just like all of these types of things?

Come on! Be more specific. Tell us in what way space is real and physical. What is space made of? In what form does it exist?

Be specific! Be scientific!

I told you several times already that the sub-structure of space will be revealed by the theory of everything. The sole candidate is string theory and it says space is made up of strings. All the evidence that we currently have says that space is real and it has physical properties. Your next meaningless question might be: "Is gravity real and physical?". And since no one has currently seen a graviton, you can continue your tripe that gravity is neither real nor physical.
You can't just come here and ask for comparision of space to a rock, this is not a humour forum.

 

[john 8]

Space is a physical thing as it exists, you live in it, drive in it, you measure it, space can be bent, space can be stretched and space was CREATED at the big bang as SR says. .

OK. So you say that space is a real physical thing. Let's take this one step at a time and see if you are correct. These will be simple yes/no questions.

1. The space between you and your computer screen, is that space a physical thing?
Yes/No. If yes please give the physical properties of this thing you call space.

2. Can you provide any scientific reference or definitions that state that space is a physical thing? Yes/No.

3. You say space can be bent and stretched and was created. Can you provide any undeniable scientific evidence that states what space is made of? Yes/No. If so please provide a reference that backs up what you are saying.


You say space is a physical thing and I disagree with your statement due to lack of any scientific evidence or reference that proves your point. Having said this I want to remind you that I just want to learn more about the subject of space. If I am wrong about my viewpoint on space than please correct my error with standard scientific evidence that shows that I am wrong. My viewpoint that space IS NOT a physical thing is founded on observational and scientific evidence to support any claim that space is a physical thing. I have heard many people state that space is a physical thing and no one has ever provided evidence to prove this statement, it seems that these people who think space is a physical thing believe that space is a physical thing and have no actual physical evidence to base their claim on. If you have any evidence in the form of observations, references, definitions, discoveries, experiments, that provide evidence to support your claim that space is a physical thing, please provide this evidence.

If you want to prove SR incorrect, be my guest. You'll definitely get a noble prize, but until then your ramblings against space are just tripe..

My questioning of space having a physical structure is a legitimate question due to the lack of evidence to support the claim that space is physical.
If I was to claim that garden gnomes were real, would you not ask for some type of hard evidence to back up my claim? So all I am asking for is some evidence to back up your claim. You have stated the space is a physical thing, then just provide some evidence of this.

I told you several times already that the sub-structure of space will be revealed by the theory of everything. The sole candidate is string theory and it says space is made up of strings. ..

Simple question. These strings that space is made of, what do they exist in and what do you call that area between these strings?

All the evidence that we currently have says that space is real and it has physical properties. ..

WHAT EVIDENCE? What type of physical properties?

Your next meaningless question might be: "Is gravity real and physical?". And since no one has currently seen a graviton, you can continue your tripe that gravity is neither real nor physical. ..

We can all agree that the force that causes things to move toward the ground is a real physical force. We can not see gravity but we can see its effects. We can measure gravity. We can sense the presence of gravity. No doubt gravity is real and physical.

You can't just come here and ask for comparison of space to a rock, this is not a humor forum.

I did not ask for a comparison, I made a comparison. If space is physical then it will be scientifically established as a physical object and there will be undeniable proof that space is physical just like the evidence that establishes the physical reality of a rock.

Look WaveJumper, you are making a claim that space is a physical thing. Alright then, I am just asking you to provide some evidence of this. I say space is not physical, you say that space is physical, so the burden of proof that space is a physical thing lies with you. Make your case with established scientific facts, it is as simple as that. Can you do this?

 

[baywax]

Space is most definitely out there. Its the "final frontier".

The real hard question is what was there before space?

 

[turbo]

Space is real. The Casimir effect shows that not only is space real, it is suffused with pairs of virtual particles popping in and out of existence. The thought that space is just empty vacuum was destroyed a long time ago.

 

[WaveJumper]

The real hard question is what was there before space?

5/0. Either that or Einstein was right and there never was a beginning or before or after. Or maybe both.

 

[baywax]

5/0. Either that or Einstein was right and there never was a beginning or before or after. Or maybe both.

I'd tend to agree or not. Or both.

 

[WaveJumper]

The real hard question is what was there before space?

5/0. Either that or Einstein was right and there never was a beginning or before or after. Or maybe both.

I'd tend to agree or not. Or both.

I meant to say that before space, whatever there was, it would be illogical(described mathematically by something like 5/0 that we'd dub impossible), or as another option - Einstein was probably right when he said:

"For us believing physicists, the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Or maybe it is a combination of the two. I hope that sounds less ambiguous.

 

[baywax]

I meant to say that before space, whatever there was, it would be illogical(described mathematically by something like 5/0 that we'd dub impossible), or as another option - Einstein was probably right when he said:

"For us believing physicists, the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Or maybe it is a combination of the two. I hope that sounds less ambiguous.

The quote helped a lot.

While our senses and our cognitions can conjure up a state that encapsulates the future, past and present, it is those same cognitive functions that separate those tenses (past, present, future) based on the many stimuli that act as concrete evidence of a past, predictable future and an experiential present. So, we have to ask ourselves.. by which message from our cognitions to we live our lives? (and survive)

Logically we can propose that there is no future since there is no proof of a future, only an infinitely unfolding present. Logically, we can say the past is "now" because all evidence of the past can only be examined "now" and that all formulation based on that evidence is a product of "now" not "then". But, does this reasoning lend itself to our survival in a universe that has taught us, our ancestry and our genetic code that there is a past, a present and a future... that has taught us, very aggressively, that there are consequences to every action... which implies a past and a present and a future.

As much as I admire Dr. Einstein's work and philosophy, and at the risk of being in error, I'd say that for all practical purposes there has been an enormous amount of past going on before I got here.

But, I do agree that perhaps there has never been a period in the universe's history when there was absolutely no space and no energy. And that, perhaps, there has been fluctuations between an abundance of energy and a decreased amount thereof, with space being present in proportionate amounts to the energy. I believe it is when the percent of space and the percent of energy are unbalanced that large events like the "big bang" might take place.

 

[WaveJumper]

OK. So you say that space is a real physical thing. Let's take this one step at a time and see if you are correct. These will be simple yes/no questions.

1. The space between you and your computer screen, is that space a physical thing?
Yes/No. If yes please give the physical properties of this thing you call space.

2. Can you provide any scientific reference or definitions that state that space is a physical thing? Yes/No.

3. You say space can be bent and stretched and was created. Can you provide any undeniable scientific evidence that states what space is made of? Yes/No. If so please provide a reference that backs up what you are saying.


You say space is a physical thing and I disagree with your statement due to lack of any scientific evidence or reference that proves your point. Having said this I want to remind you that I just want to learn more about the subject of space. If I am wrong about my viewpoint on space than please correct my error with standard scientific evidence that shows that I am wrong. My viewpoint that space IS NOT a physical thing is founded on observational and scientific evidence to support any claim that space is a physical thing. I have heard many people state that space is a physical thing and no one has ever provided evidence to prove this statement, it seems that these people who think space is a physical thing believe that space is a physical thing and have no actual physical evidence to base their claim on. If you have any evidence in the form of observations, references, definitions, discoveries, experiments, that provide evidence to support your claim that space is a physical thing, please provide this evidence.








My questioning of space having a physical structure is a legitimate question due to the lack of evidence to support the claim that space is physical.
If I was to claim that garden gnomes were real, would you not ask for some type of hard evidence to back up my claim? So all I am asking for is some evidence to back up your claim. You have stated the space is a physical thing, then just provide some evidence of this.






Simple question. These strings that space is made of, what do they exist in and what do you call that area between these strings?






WHAT EVIDENCE? What type of physical properties?





We can all agree that the force that causes things to move toward the ground is a real physical force. We can not see gravity but we can see its effects. We can measure gravity. We can sense the presence of gravity. No doubt gravity is real and physical.





I did not ask for a comparison, I made a comparison. If space is physical then it will be scientifically established as a physical object and there will be undeniable proof that space is physical just like the evidence that establishes the physical reality of a rock.

Look WaveJumper, you are making a claim that space is a physical thing. Alright then, I am just asking you to provide some evidence of this. I say space is not physical, you say that space is physical, so the burden of proof that space is a physical thing lies with you. Make your case with established scientific facts, it is as simple as that. Can you do this?

Do yourself a favour by at least looking at general relativity, the curvature of space, how this curvature causes gravity, how black holes bend space, how light has no mass and can't be bent by gravity but just follows this curved space, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity




Then have a look at the models of the shape of the space of the universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe




Take a look at the Big Bang theory and what GR says about space:

"According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang



Einstein, GR , SR and the Big Bang model are testable and backed by evidence. Your "theory" that space is neither real nor physical is wholely unsupported and reflects the views of 17th and 18th century.
So how does something "unreal" and "unphysical" get bent by mass? Einstein claims in his GR that space was created at the Big Bang and it's meaningless to ask what was before the Big Bang. How would you refute that?
Do you know what gravity waves are? They are ripples of spacetime. How would that be possible if space was unreal and unphysical?

 

[tommy dee]

I am very happy to exist as a real combination right about now. for precise travel, there are other threads here posted about traveling back in time which give a good method or interesting ideas on a combination of ways to achieve this point to point journey a second time over.

 

[Chrisc]

I did not ask for a comparison, I made a comparison. If space is physical then it will be scientifically established as a physical object and there will be undeniable proof that space is physical just like the evidence that establishes the physical reality of a rock.

I can touch a rock and space.
I can weigh a rock and space.
I can measure a rock and space.
I can put a rock in a box.
The more rocks I put in a box the less space I can put in the box.
The more space I put in the box the less rocks I can put in the box.

Is space "real"?
Is space "physically real"?
Is space a "physically real thing"?

Please define "physical" and "real".
When you're done, whatever that "thing" you've defined is...so to is space.