What Exactly Is Spacetime? Find Out Inside

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Space is nothing.

What about the zero-point energy that resides in space?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
AC already replied and he is spot on. Space is nothingness
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The universe was created in nothingness, but the universe itself (matter, energy, and space) is something.

For example, if you were a subscriber to the various ideas of a "Big Bang"-style creation of the universe, then that big bang was an expansion of space, and that space itself expanded into that nothingness -- but the space that expanded was something.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Space is nothing.

What about the zero-point energy that resides in space?

If you ask the mainstream, they don't believe it exists.

If you ask Mills, he says it's a function of our misunderstanding of atomic physics.

If you ask me, I think there is some kind of aether like substance that all matter is made out of. It is impossible for a wave to propagate through nothing, so obviously there must be something that waves are propagating through.

I contend that this "something" is not space, but rather an aether that fills all of space. It cannot bend, it can only give rise to energy, which in turn gives rise to form. All form is energy, and all energy is "love". Cliche, but I like to think big.

With Mills theory, energy, matter and light are all virtually interchangeable. Mills theory address every problem with atomic physics, so at least that part of it must be right. However, Mills is still a believer in General Relativity. His theory only eliminates SR. It is up to plasma cosmology to finally discredit GR and bring everything under the domain of atomic level physics.

I find it interesting that light plays such a large roll in Mills calculations. Near death experiencers have been telling us about this for eons.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I don't see any links in the OP to what Space is.

If you ask the mainstream, they don't believe it exists.

That's not exactly true. One quick example

While the concept of zero-point energy is generally accepted, the idea that this energy can be harnessed as a power source is highly controversial. The theory is that a device could capture the zero-point energy, which is commonly considered to be infinite. This idea is, at its root, in conflict with the current understanding of the zero-point, according to physics.

science.howstuffworks.com...

There's a big difference between acknowledging its existence and claiming it can be 'harnessed'.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Space is nothing.

What about the zero-point energy that resides in space?

If you ask the mainstream, they don't believe it exists.

This is absolutely false. The idea of zero-point energy, vacuum energy, and quantum fluctuation are hallmarks of mainstream quantum physics and the idea that space is defined by fields.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

If you ask me, I think there is some kind of aether like substance that all matter is made out of. It is impossible for a wave to propagate through nothing, so obviously there must be something that waves are propagating through.

I contend that this "something" is not space, but rather an aether that fills all of space. It cannot bend, it can only give rise to energy, which in turn gives rise to form. All form is energy, and all energy is "love". Cliche, but I like to think big.

Let's say this is true. Would space still be space without this "aether-like substance"?

It is my contention that in the quantum theory standard model, space is defined by quantum fields. Without these fields, space would not exist. There would be nothingness -- no space, no time; it would be a place that does not exist (so it wouldn't be a "place" at all).

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I suppose space could exist, but nothing could exist inside of space if this were true.

All things are interrelated through space. It is impossible to have a front without a back. It is impossible to have black without white. It is impossible to have something without nothing.

Space is nothing.

What fills the nothing is not space.

Ya know, there is another philosophical way of looking at this as well. We could say that matter came from nothing, which means it must be made of nothing. If matter is made of nothing, what we perceive as space isn't really a separation at all. This seems counter-intuitive, but the further we drill down into matter, more it becomes obvious that nothing is really there at all, just energy. What's pure energy? Light? What's light? Could it be that this is all spiritual illusion made of nothing? A big dream?

I think, therefore I am.

Ultimately not much more can be said about this reality beyond that with any certainty.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
There's a big difference between acknowledging its existence and claiming it can be 'harnessed'.

Exactly. It was Albert Einstein himself (with Otto Stern) who developed the notion as necessary for quantum mechanics in 1913.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

It is considered the residual quantum motion at zero absolute temperature, and that means no work can be extracted.

Don't bet against Einstein.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

Space is nothing.

What fills the nothing is not space.

In the standard theory, the quantum fields don't fill space - -they are space. There is no space without them.

It's not like space was an area of nothingness into which the universe came into being. As the Big Bang theory goes, the big bang was not a bunch of "stuff" exploding into a pre-existing space. Rather, the big bang was an expansion of that space itself.

The Big Bang can't be defined as a hurling matter into space, because space did not exist before the big bang. The quantum energy fields created by the big bang is what defines what space is.

Once again...according to mainstream standard theory, those fields are not "in" space or simply fill space, those fields and the interactions due to those fields "are" space.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Once again...those fields are not "in" space or simply fill space, those fields and the interactions due to those fields "are" space.

Well, the structure of a field theory is that the underlying physical reality is some mathematical function of x,y,z,t, so the setup of a function means there is an input domain (space time) and a single-valued output (definition of function)---they are not the same conceptual entity.

But the interactions of those fields don't define spacetime themselves, they presuppose it and use it.

Saying the universe is made from fields (and I agree that SM is very successful and much of it has to be correct) and that's why there's space time is trying to make a consequence out of an axiomatic presupposition.

Now there is work which attempts to derive spacetime and fields as an emergent property of something even lower.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: mbkennel
Other than experimental facts like:

a) protons are much more massive than electrons, and yet they have the same magnitude and opposite signed charges. Clearly something other than charge & electromagnetism relates to gravitation.

b) gravitational lensing is a quantitatively verified experimental phenomenon, as is gravitational redshift, as well as geodetic and frame-dragging directly verified by experiment.

People who are into 'alternative physics' are frequently ignorant of the depth of quantitative experimental evidence supporting the standard models.

a) To me all that means is gravity is an electromagnetic effect that is unrelated.

Then it's an """electromagnetic""" effect unrelated to electromagnetism. So if it doesn't couple to charge, or electromagnetic fields, then why bother calling it either electro or magnetic?

b) No lab has ever produced gravitational lensing.

True, and the numbers predict that it would be impossible to see in the lab.

It is a theory, not a fact. There are alternative explanations, such as plasma self-focusing, that are ignored.

But general relativity explains, in a single, consistent theoretical manner:

a) local astrophysical observations, sunlight abberation and the anomalous precession of Mercury (how would plasma explain that?)
b) distant astrophysical observations: galactic gravitational lensing across a wide variety of circumstances---no reason to suppose a 'plasma self-focusing' woudl give quantitatively the same results
c) rotational decay rates of millisecond pulsars from gravitational radiation
d) things which look like black holes
e) the cosmic redshift & expansionary universe
f) actual lab experiments on gravitational redshift

plus all the theoretical arguments which lead to Einstein inventing it when he had only a single experimental fact above when he did so (Mercury).

You could try to patch an ad-hoc explanation for every one of those, but that's stupid.

a reply to: mbkennel

That's right. I'm glad to see you acknowledge the distinction.

I'm not one to presuppose my beliefs are wholly correct. I could be way off base. However, I am confident that SR isn't the best model of the reality we inhabit. I am confident in saying nothing cannot bend, which throws GR out the window. There are better explanations, although they may be incomplete, they are still better.

Let us not forget that this universe contains consciousness, something no purely physicalist theory can ever resolve. Ignoring consciousness or saying it doesn't exist, or saying it's just an illusion is a denial of reality.

edit:

Wind0w is blocked?

a reply to: mbkennel

It may be a matter of semantics, but the way I see it, space is defined by these fields; space wouldn't be space without these fields.

In the big bang, was space first created and then filled with these fields, or did space itself expand because of the expansion of the domain of these fields?

I've always envisioned it this way: space wouldn't be there without the interactions of these fields, juts like the oceans wouldn't be their without the ocean water. The big hole in the ground in which the ocean water resides is not the ocean -- the ocean water is the ocean.

As the theory goes, there was no pre-existing space into which the universe "big banged". Instead, it may have been shear nothingness into which the universe was created.....i.e., a non-existient place that would be impossible to visit -- because it is nothingness.

However, that nothingness is not at all the same thing as space. Space is not nothingness.

originally posted by: mbkennel
Then it's an """electromagnetic""" effect unrelated to electromagnetism. So if it doesn't couple to charge, or electromagnetic fields, then why bother calling it either electro or magnetic?

Because matter is energy, so any property of matter is going to be a function of that energy, not space. Thornhill posits that gravity is a function of radially aligned dipoles.

originally posted by: mbkennel
True, and the numbers predict that it would be impossible to see in the lab.

And I predict that's because it's not real.

originally posted by: mbkennel
But general relativity explains, in a single, consistent theoretical manner:

a) local astrophysical observations, sunlight abberation and the anomalous precession of Mercury (how would plasma explain that?)
b) distant astrophysical observations: galactic gravitational lensing across a wide variety of circumstances---no reason to suppose a 'plasma self-focusing' woudl give quantitatively the same results
c) rotational decay rates of millisecond pulsars from gravitational radiation
d) things which look like black holes
e) the cosmic redshift & expansionary universe
f) actual lab experiments on gravitational redshift

plus all the theoretical arguments which lead to Einstein inventing it when he had only a single experimental fact above when he did so (Mercury).

You could try to patch an ad-hoc explanation for every one of those, but that's stupid.

Plasma cosmology can address those in one coherent theory. In fact, EU theory is farrrrrrr more coherent.

For example, EU theory can explain brown dwarfs, pulsars and red giants using ONE model, with no hypothetical energy or matter.

Let's see GR do that.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: mbkennel

That's right. I'm glad to see you acknowledge the distinction.

I'm not one to presuppose my beliefs are wholly correct. I could be way off base. However, I am confident that SR isn't the best model of the reality we inhabit. I am confident in saying nothing cannot bend, which throws GR out the window. There are better explanations, although they may be incomplete, they are still better.

In what way are they better?

There are alternate mathematical formulations of GR which (most of the time) yield the same answer but seem theoretically different.

Here's one for instance: arxiv.org...

And it follows a path which was initiated by Einstein himself.

Let us not forget that this universe contains consciousness, something no purely physicalist theory can ever resolve.

Why the second assertion? Why can't a physicalist theory do so? Connectionist neuroscience has started to yield models (in particular deep learning neural networks) which are starting to perform interesting cognitive tasks which 50 years ago people would say can only be a result of 'higher intelligence' or some such.

originally posted by: mbkennel
In what way are they better?

Mills atomic theory can predict binding energies precisely - virtually no error at all. You should look at his work. His models will blow your mind with their predictive power. All labs will transition to Millsian software in the near future.

www.millsian.com...

Why the second assertion? Why can't a physicalist theory do so? Connectionist neuroscience has started to yield models (in particular deep learning neural networks) which are starting to perform interesting cognitive tasks which 50 years ago people would say can only be a result of 'higher intelligence' or some such.

Because logically speaking it's simply impossible. Now you can put forth all sorts of obtuse arguments to the contrary, but that doesn't mean they are logically sound. Such theories violate rules of causality.

I'm not sure why you would want to believe in such a theory anyways. Nihilism seems to be a rather depressing belief system that's not predicated on any kind of sound logic.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

If you ask me, I think there is some kind of aether like substance that all matter is made out of. It is impossible for a wave to propagate through nothing, so obviously there must be something that waves are propagating through.

I contend that this "something" is not space, but rather an aether that fills all of space. It cannot bend, it can only give rise to energy, which in turn gives rise to form. All form is energy, and all energy is "love".

So, if you're correct, in essence, there is no space in the universe. The universe consists of the aether, energy, and matter?

a reply to: Mary Rose

I know I'm kind of talking in circles here, but I'll do my best.

Ultimately I don't think there is any matter, space, aether, energy, light, etc.. there is nothing about this universe that is "real."

I think this universe is about as tangible as a dream.

What's ultimately "real" is not knowable beyond what we can perceive with our own senses, but our senses are easily deceived.

In terms of this "dream world", obviously matter, space, energy, light, etc.. are all very real things that our senses can perceive. The best we can do here is model their behavior. In terms of modeling the behavior, I think a steady state aether based universe, predicated on classical physics, is the best model to represent reality. However, those are just models, they aren't "real" things. The model is never reality.

Do you get what I'm saying?

We can model reality, but the models can't tell us what the reality is ultimately made of.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
What's ultimately "real" is not knowable beyond what we can perceive with our own senses, but our senses are easily deceived.

Maybe meditation is required to perceive the big picture.

originally posted by: [post=18222071]AnarchoCapitalist Ultimately I don't think there is any matter, space, aether, energy, light, etc.. there is nothing about this universe that is "real."

You are on to something profound there mate. Something like a giant hologram which only feels real

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: [post=18222071]AnarchoCapitalist Ultimately I don't think there is any matter, space, aether, energy, light, etc.. there is nothing about this universe that is "real."

You are on to something profound there mate. Something like a giant hologram which only feels real

I really don't think the Universe is a hologram...
The word hologram describes why not