What is space?

Jump to Last Post 1-16 of 16 discussions (80 posts)

0
jomineposted 13 years ago
"Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction."; Wikipedia.
If space is a boundless expanse, is it an object or nothing?
If it is nothing[as it lack a shape(boundless], if it has no borders, how does it expand?
How can an unlimited boundless expanse be 3 dimensional? Isn't it the ruler we use , that is three dimensional?
If it is something, can we carry it around, like we carry an object?
reply report
1. 68
  NathanielZhuposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, what we call "nothing" IS something.
  It's called quantum fluctuations which is thought to have caused the big bang seemingly from nothing (which is something).
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  NathanielZhu
  
  I have seen your posts regarding evolution and I say you are a good biologist. With due respect, what you just wrote is nonsense. Space is nothing, that is, it has no shape or borders. It is that which give shape to objects. You can say there are particles. That may be the stars or galaxies or atoms or anything, but the property common to all these are, they have shape. Space is boundless and border-less, objects exist in space or not, it will remain so.
  Big bang says everything started from nothing, self creation or creation ex nihilo, either of which is idiotic. Nothing cannot suddenly attain length, width and breadth to be something, similarly something will never loose all these properties to be nothing. If anybody argue so, then they are talking religion not science.
  reply report
  59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  NathanielZhu,
  If you wish to more clearly understand the positions taken by certain members of this discussion, then I would suggest you read a few of billgaede's hubs. The idea of this topic falls roughly in line with the reasoning proposed in those hubs.
  reply report
  58
  OutWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This something called space is, from what we know, a vaccuum that does contain electromagnetic radiation in the least, and probably so much undiscovered :stuff" too.
  reply report
2. 57
  MorganRogerDentalposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The definition of space is quite contradictory. So, I will recommend to search in a good way about the proper definition of space, understand its properties & then remarks.
  reply report
  60
  Alisha Sharmaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In my opinion space can't be defined. It is endless or just an illusion. Only the creator of this knows what is this actually?
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In other words it is human conceptualization of nothing. nothing can be created, it is omnipresent.
  reply report
3. 61
  qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  jomine:
  
  To define the word "space" is like trying to define the metaphysical.
  
  All anyone can offer is an opinion.
  
  If there are no objects in a 3-dimensional expanse, what is the expanse?
  
  It's like trying to visualize and describe how far do "out and in" go.
  
  It can't be done except as an "opinion" which has no basis in knowing and understanding.
  
  Qwark
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The word is not similar to 'god" Qwark! Everybody has to use it if they have to refer what is outside of earth.
  
  Space is nothing but our conceptualization of nothing. When we say space we actually mean nothing or that which has no shape, but give shape to objects!
  reply report
  61
  qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jomine:
  
  WEll, thank you for re-wording my response. :
  
  "Space" can't be defined in any form but opinion.
  
  "God?"...I have no idea what you are referring to..?? :
  
  Qwark
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Space" can't be defined in any form but opinion.
  If it is just an opinion it can never be used in scientific dissertations. Nobody should say space has 4 or 5 dimensions!!
  
  But try this, get a paper(any color you choose), then get a pen of the same color(I meant the ink). Then draw a circle on the paper without making a pressure mark. Then after sometime check the paper. I bet you will not be able to identify the circle you draw. If it has to be identified it has to have a different color. Similarly an object can be identified(thats it shape can be delineated) only if there is a background of nothingness to define the shape. I guess we can call, anything we want, but by convention it is called "space".
  
  "God?"...I have no idea what you are referring to..?? :
  
  Neither do I! You are the one who uses that more than I!
  reply report
  61
  qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...again Jomine, naught but an opinion...:
  
  The world of metaphysics is but, at this moment in human evolution, a land under the bridge where the "troll" lives. :
  
  Qwark
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are reading too much relativity Qwark, They are the people who delegate stuff to philosophers, that which they cannot describe by their equations!
  I have nothing too do with metaphysics, I'm bored with the esoteric.
  I say only with respect to physics. What philosophers or the religionists worry about, is entirely their concern, not mine.
  reply report
  61
  qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...can't debate that with ya my friend!
  I'll stick with, what at the moment is,.."reality." :
  
  Qwark
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Reality?
  Its very simple Qwark, there are somethings that exist, we human beings try to explain that, try to make a meaning out of it(and some, a living out of it )
  reply report
  61
  qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jomine:
  
  Read with understanding...:
  
  I said: "...what at the MOMENT (MOMENT is the operative word) is reality."
  
  I didn't intimate that what, at the "moment," is reality, will "ALWAYS" be "our" reality.
  
  But we agree. :
  
  Qwark
  reply report
4. 70
  waynetposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...The final Frontier, these are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, it's continuing mission to explore strange new worlds and civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.....da da da da da da.....yadda yadda......
  reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 13 years ago
You see, the problem is non thorough definitions. You know, define A. A is B. Then define B. B is C etc. We reach a point where we ask what is the purpose of definition? Sane people begine by observation then conceptualisation i.e. Having in mind what you observe. When naming then, we MERELY want it such that what you observed will come to mind when the word is uttered.

Now come to mathematics. Define a number? The mathematicians will tell you we don't define it. The reason is actually simple. The meaning of a number is gotten from the real world and mathematician is not allowed in the real world. So when physicists, whose realm is the real world opt to regard a number etc as undefined is where the whole problem comes in. Since the meaning of a number is gotten from the real world, all a physicist need is produce 3 billiard balls and the deal is done. We now understand the meaning of 3. Ie we merely have the picture in mind so that when somebody say 3, the mind redraw the sceene. We call it conceptualisation.

Now come to space, geometry is a real world discipline. Where definition in words fail, illustration take over or else the word is regarded as meaningless. What is the meaning of 'is equal to?' the mathematician do not define. A physicist? No! He must produce two equal sized billiard balls or else the phrase is meaningless! What is perpendicular? Simple produce a perpendicular line and the deal is done other wise the term is meaningless. What is '3 mutually perpendicular lines?' simple, produce a cube. You see, there is actually nothing called a mathematical meaning! Just because of the definition problem of mathematics. What is 4 mutualy perpendicular lines? A piece of cacke. Just produce a 4 d object and the deal is done or else the phrase is declared meaningless!
reply report
1. 59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "What is perpendicular? Simple produce a perpendicular line and the deal is done other wise the term is meaningless. "
  
  Are you arguing that the term "perpendicular" has no meaning in the real world because a truly perpendicular line cannot be produced? If so, then I am bound by academic integrity to inform you that a perpendicular line CAN be produced. Although, I have to admit that I might be missing your meaning entirely (due to your somewhat esoteric use of language).
  Unfortunately, I am not a physicist, so I am limited to discussing things from a mathematical standpoint - or, rather, what is actually contained within the generally accepted standard of "mathematics."
  I only make that clarification because I note your liberal use of the label "mathematician."
  reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 13 years ago
The question is not is there two lines that can pass through a point and are both parallel to a third line? Remember that the mathematician has not define line, point and straight. So not short cut the question is what is the meaning of two lines that pass through one point and are parallel to a third line? You see, the mathematicians build the first floor before they build the basement! So a physicist gives us the meaning by simly drawing those three lines. we now then understand that a triangle has two parallel lines or a curve is a straight line and straight line is a straight line so after university, we need to go back to standard one. If he say they meet at infinity, he still need to produce for us infinitely long lines. He is the one saing not us! Otherwise, regard it all as just garbage childish myths of no practical importance in understanding reality.
reply report
1. 59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, one of Mr. Gaede's colleagues?
  I only ask this because I notice that you referred to physicists (I presume) as "mathematicians." I will grant that physicists are capable of producing odd results that aren't verifiable in any way, and additionally that they do this frequently using mathematics. However, I would ask that the terms not be used interchangeably, since there are a great many mathematicians who have absolutely no interest in physics (or sometimes even the physical world!) whatsoever.
  And, you are mistaken about the definitions of point, line, and straight. Perhaps you haven't looked hard enough? Or, like Mr. Gaede, you disagree with Euclid's definitions.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
Space is the collective of light, 96% of which --according to scientific studies-- is dark or unobservable. The largest portion of space then would be dominant neutral energy.

James.
reply report
73
lorlie6posted 13 years ago
I've heard it's really, really big.
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 13 years ago
Nathaniel
pleace, set the language correct. Your hypothes is correctly stated as; where we think there is nothing, there is actually something.
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 13 years ago
James
we say, in otherwise empty space. There is neutral energy.
reply report
60
Alisha Sharmaposted 13 years ago
What is that which you say something? This is the question which has been in my mind. I always think what is beyond the universe?
Who made the first living creature?
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 13 years ago
Alisha sharma
yes, it is good that you are giving it second thought. You see, the reason we donnot get pleased is because they tell us that space is nothingness. Then they give it characteristics. When you ask but how. They switch gears and say what we call nothing is something. Someone like you reasonably as; is it the creating spirit of say God you are talking about? They switch back and say no, it is nothing just emptiness, you know, space! How can you make a reasonable debate with such people?
reply report
1. 60
  Alisha Sharmaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  L.K.kirui
  I agree with you. We are human and can think to a limited extent. We can't compare our knowledge with GOD. Then how can we say that there is nothingness just because we don't know the answer.
  reply report
2. 59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, I can't speak from a canonical perspective on physics, but I would consider "space" to be that which is not occupied by solid (or liquid) matter. For example, the inside of a balloon, to me, is space. I understand that this is not a rigorous definition, but I fail to see why it really NEEDS to be. Is the concept of "space" really that critical to any ideas which you oppose?
  The whole effort to undermine mainstream physics through the use of nitpicky semantics frankly reminds me of the attempt by ID/Creationists to dismantle atheism by proving evolution false.
  Consider this, L.K.kirui and jomine - if you could get all the physicists in the world to say "space defies our ability to define in a satisfactorily rigorous way," what would you gain? Do you think that such an event would disrupt any current trends in the scientific community regarding physics?
  reply report
  71
  mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well said, and so true.
  
  I think, aside from pushing an agenda, that the definition needs to be better understood in general. I'm sure physicists understand the concept better than most, but for the rest of us a concrete understanding is essential. Otherwise we will get confused or caught up in semantics, similar to when people think that evolution means that humans came from modern apes, when evolution says that we share a common ancestor.
  
  Of course some individuals will ignore the information provided and not even attempt to rationalize the idea. There's not much you can do to convince a mind that is already convinced it knows everything.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  mathsciguy
  OK, I'll use mathematical physicists, but isn't it a little cumbersome to type?
  I think you will agree with me that science is human attempt to explain nature. So all the explanation should be natural. And as it is an explanation that is meant to be conveyed to his fellow beings it should be clear and precise. Hence the need arise to define crucial terms, to convey the meaning consistently and clearly.
  
  Now about space, space is our conceptualization of nothing. Space has no shape, but give shape to objects(it is the background on which objects exist).
  As you are a maths guy, you might be well versed in geometry. Hence you might know that dimensions are used only to define the architecture and orientation of an object and they are length, width and height. They are mutually perpendicular and intrinsic property of the object. They are not stand alone, as you cannot have length alone. Even a drawing of line is 2D.
  As space is not an object, you cannot put dimensions to space. And as objects cannot have one more perpendicular direction, no object can have more that 3 dimension. So what is this 4th dimension. Such monsters does not exist. Not only that we cannot even conceive or visualize such a thing.
  The whole modern science or relativity is based on 4D space and space existing as a road for planets to role around. Hence a rigorous definition itself will destroy the edifice of modern science.
  And quantum tells everything is made of particles. They say light is a particle, yet they use wave theory to explain interference and diffraction . You might well know that a mathematical sine wave exist only in paper. In real world it need a medium, and modern science fail to tell what the medium is! The MM experiment discredited the ether theory, yet the very same people say space is made of particles!!!
  reply report
  59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm gonna be really honest and just tell everybody up-front that basically what I know about physics beyond simple mechanics I learned from reading Feynman's lectures at CalTech. As you might imagine, this leaves me with what I would consider a better-than-discovery-channel-but-not-nearly-competitive knowledge of topics in quantum physics, QED, etc. But, maybe due to my tendency to take a maths perspective (which I am aware might be entirely improper), I understood the concept of the 4D Minkowski space to be basically like Euclidean space which we normally think of as geometric (height, width, length) but with an added metric of time. For example, a cube in Minkowski space differs from the "same" cube at a different time. But, as I said, my understanding is fairly elementary (at least in terms of quantum theories), so that might be a horrible misconception on my part.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And of course, Riemann came along to show that in Euclidean geometry, parallel lines never meet, an assumption made by Euclid that gets messed up with gravity. His version of non-Euclidean geometry showed they can meet and solved the problem of curved space.
  reply report
  59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I do seem to recall that name from somewhere in my past...
  Though, I don't really have much experience with non-Euclidean geometry other than transformations of complex functions into a Euclidean frame of reference. And even then, I really am only familiar with the ones that have applications in engineering and modeling.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't bother about reimann, he is the one who draw a triangle on a sphere with curved lines and claimed the angles together make more than 180 degree, while in actuality a triangle is made of three straight lines!! Another example of 'redefining', very convenient for relativists.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ever hear of a geodesic?
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ever heard of planes?
  A triangle is in a single plane, made of straight lines. A straight line touch a sphere only at one point.
  geodesic is a dynamic concept while a line is static!!
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "For example, a cube in Minkowski space differs from the "same" cube at a different time."
  
  A cube left alone will always remain a cube irrespective of any idiots space time. Have you ever seen a circle turn to a sphere by adding the 4th dimension time? The relativists are zombies. They ridicule people who say everything was created by god and put forward a worse nonsense - everything was self created, that is nothing suddenly attained length, width and height to become something!! To add to that, they say nothing was also created along with their bang, that is "nothing" was there before the bang, even "nothing"!
  reply report
  59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Right you are, jomine. I was trying to clear up what seems to be a common misunderstanding about "4D objects." I think people have a tendency to think of it in a sort of Flatland sense, where adding the 4th dimension ends up giving you some kind of inconceivable object like a hypercube, or whatever. This, I think, is not what is meant by physicists referring to the 4 dimensions. Coincidentally, I think that your conception of 4D actually is more in line with what a mathematician would think of - so, perhaps, you really ought to be saying "mathematician" instead of "mathematical physicist."
  But, from what I understand, the physicist means something different when referring to 4D. The cube is still just a cube, it looks exactly the same and still has all the same Euclidean dimensional measurements. It may be, in fact, the exact same cube - BUT, remember that "dimension" really only means a metric by which something is measured. The physicist measures the time at which the cube is, as well.
  For example, say I have a 3D cube that we'll call cube A. Its measurements are (3,3,3), or 3 high, 3 wide, and 3 long. In 4D we might say that it is (3,3,3,1), or 3 high, 3 wide, 3 long, and 1 second later than a given time. Obviously, the cube won't suddenly become a circle - when we "add" a dimension, we aren't actually changing the object itself but rather are just measuring one more aspect of it.
  A final clarification that may help - a line can be a 3D object, as well. Suppose we have a line AB that has measurements (3,0,0). Well, it's still a line - but we've measured it on 3 axes and can see that (since it is, after all, a line) it simply has 0 width and height.
  Now, anyone with actual rigorous training in physics please correct me if this is totally off-base, since my understanding may well be imperfect. I am self-taught in this area, so if anyone could verify that this is accurate, I'd appreciate it for my own self-confidence too!
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "A final clarification that may help - a line can be a 3D object, as well. Suppose we have a line AB that has measurements (3,0,0). Well, it's still a line - but we've measured it on 3 axes and can see that (since it is, after all, a line) it simply has 0 width and height."
  
  We are in agreement in most respects, though there are some disagreements. When we say '0' D than means there is nothing in that dimension. A line has at least 2 dimensions. A 1D line can never occur, the 2nd dimension may be infinitesimally small, but still it is there. That is the problem when relativistis say '0'D objects. If all dimensions are '0' then what is left is nothing, as 0D has no shape, and is not even conceivable.
  
  The same problem occurs when they try to add concepts like time and space as dimensions. Time is our concept of two locations of an object. With time what changes is the location. We use co-ordinates to denote location and not dimensions. Relativists use all these interchangeably and claim an object has so many dimensions. Since they do not stick to definitions and always change there goal posts, it can never be falsified!
  reply report
  59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You see, this is where my tendency to see things from a mathematics perspective influences my understanding of the topic - really, anyone who could tell me that it's different from what I'm saying, please do because I am not sure if I'm presenting it correctly.
  Anyhow, I think that I see where the miscommunication is occurring. When you speak of the "dimension" of an object, you are referring explicitly to the minimum number of measurements needed to uniquely identify the object - although I think you may have meant to call a line a 1D object that cannot be "fit" into 0 dimensions (since a line does, in fact, have 1 dimension - length). But even so, I still don't see the problem with something having 0 dimension - 0 length, 0 height, 0 width (ignoring the measurement of time at which the thing is). I suppose it is difficult to think of it being an "object" since it doesn't actually have measurements.
  What things are claimed to be 0D by mathematical physicists? I looked and couldn't find any references to such things, but my search was somewhat limited. After all, if physicists don't claim any physical things to have 0 dimension, then it can hardly be said that the foundations of relativistic physics (or any type of physics, for that matter) are shaken by even the outright assumption of your position as true.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Try this,
  Draw a line with the finest pen available and then look that line in a microscope, you will see a width. However fine the line is, it still got a width. The moment the width is zero it cease to exist. In fact any drawings are 2D.
  Now 0D objects...even electrons are proposed to be 0D, let alone light, the Quanta.... virtual particles. But don't confront a relativist, they immediately change tack! And you will also find that in these particles spontaneously arise from nothing and spontaneously things cease to exist. Usually, only god is supposed to do such magic tricks!
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, your basing your knowledge of physics on the size of a ball point pen?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If we use your logic, the line made from the ink from a pen under a microscope would show it actually has three dimensions, length, width and height, so every line should be 3D, and what we consider three dimensional objects in your world would be 9D.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You can prove what you say, very simple, just draw a 1D line. Please explain how that 3D became 9D?
  Or are you just telling, all the physics is just wild guesses, with no relation to reality?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, wild guesses just from you.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "If we use your " l "ogic, the line made from the ink from a pen under a microscope would show it actually has three dimensions, length, width and height,"
  
  Just see the " l " in logic, is it 2D or 3D? Can you ever make it 1D?
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, if I sat there drawing lines on paper and extracting answers, I could make up anything I wanted, just like you.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I never made up anything, its your job, creating things out of nothing, making 4Ds you can't illustrate, dilate time, contract length............. When are you going to expand justice and bend love?
  report
  59
  mathsciguyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I do love a little discussion about infinitesimal values. I see now why you called a line a 2D object. But, strictly speaking, a "line" as is meant in mathematical terms is not what you described. It's a little akin to saying that dogs don't have fur because hey-look-over-there-it's-a-dog-without-fur and you've actually picked out an elephant.
  But, I see your contention now, perhaps. It is true that a "line" in the pure mathematical sense is an abstract thing that I'm sure can't be produced in practice in the real world. However, this doesn't make the concept of a pure line totally irrelevant. For example, in mathematics, a line is representative of strict correlation between two variables with absolutely no variance. This can, and does often, happen in the real world when talking about discrete variables - making the line a useful tool for even applied mathematicians.
  
  Are electrons proposed to be 0D? I thought they had mass... so wouldn't that, by definition, make them infinitely dense? Not a professional physicist here, so please correct me if I am mistaken.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi,
  I very well agree its a useful mathematical abstract. But in physics we are dealing with objects and not concepts. We deal with things that exist, hence we don't use anything less than or more than 3D.
  Mass is again a concept, they propose it increase only if it get the velocity of Light. In nature there is nothing called 1D, 2D or 4D and mass is a concept that is not defined, hence a 'fit for all size' with no meaning.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but who is we? Are you referring to just you? Physics doesn't agree with you at all.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Say your religion of relativity, not physics.
  report
  79
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Um, you never really make a lot of sense, dude. And you do seem to have your own "physics" that bears little relation to the physics out there in the world.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "you never really make a lot of sense"
  
  For that you need to have sense. Writing novels and "believing" nonsense is not physics. Physics is about explaining the nature(what is generally known as universe) rationally. Nobody is to invent any new stuff called space time, but merely have to explain, the relation between the objects(which is already there), with out any contradiction and magik. Self-creation is magic, and creation-ex-nihilo is supernatural, neither go with physics.
  report
  79
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You see, how was that response to me? How did it logically flow?
  
  You don't make sense. How is novel writing relevant? A lot of scientists write novels. The also know how to write clearly and argue logically when they need to.
  
  The fact that space is an area bounded by height, width and depth seems to baffle you, and I just don't know why.
  report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I thought you are seconding beel, who is a fanatic blindly following his god einstein.
  
  The novels like relativity, brief history of time....
  
  An area is bonded by a margin, not width or height. Space is an expanse. It has no properties like width or height. If we place a ruler, it is the height and width of the ruler we are calculating, not that of space. I think you might have seen the picture of universe. What is that is outside of this universe?
  Where is its length or breadth?
  I have put a picture here.
  
  what is that black stuff around the universe? Where does it end? what is the length, width and height of that?
  report
  71
  mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I like this take on dimensions
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
  
  Not sure if it has anything to do with the discussion but I thought it was neat
  reply report
79
psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago
If you want a scientific definition of space, don't look for it in Wikipedia.
reply report
1. 0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then give your definition that can be used consistently!
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Space is an esoteric physics concept and the layman (me) wants something they can understand and get their mind around. I'm not a physicist, but I'll take a stab it.
  
  Space is a placeholder. A multidimensional (at least 4) placeholder.
  
  Imagine you are typing a long string of digits, a very large number. Occasionally you will type a zero. But zero is not truly a number; it is only a placeholder where a number could be placed.
  
  Expanding the analogy, space is a place where energy or matter could be placed. Any particular spot in space could have energy in it, could have matter in it or could be empty with nothing in it. Even if empty, it could hold something, it just doesn't at this moment.
  
  Current theory holds that space, in our universe, is limited; there is an end, or edge, to it. Neither energy nor matter can exist outside of space as there is no placeholder to occupy. Space is the cup that holds all of the energy of our universe, regardless of the form (matter perhaps) that energy is in.
  reply report
  72
  Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I like this concept as it goes along nicely with what I was taught about the subject. Many people use the term "space" when the really mean "void."
  
  Space has a potential to be exist even if it is not occupied by a single atom. You could stick your hand into it.
  
  A "void" is only an expression, like 0, to give a descriptor for nothingness.
  
  Good post.
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. That's how I've come to think of it - a place where something can exist as opposed to a "no-place" where nothing is or can be.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have to disagree in some aspects.
  Dimension- is entirely the attribute of an object, not space, as space has no dimension. If we use a ruler to get the dimension of space, it is the ruler's dimension we are measuring not space's!
  
  Second about borders. Again you are attributing the properties of an object to space. If there is a border, what is it made of? What is outside the border?
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Space certainly does have dimension. You can't fit a 3 dimensional object into a 2 dimensional space - just try to fit a basketball into the surface of a piece of paper. Try to fit a 2 dimensional circle onto a line. Space must have at least 4 dimensions (counting time) to hold the "things" we are familiar with.
  
  To use your ruler thought; place a ruler on the surface of a piece of paper. It occupies part of that "space" now. You can measure the width and height of that paper but that's all. You cannot tip the ruler up; it is completely connected to the surface of the paper and cannot occupy three dimensional space as we required it to occupy only two dimensions.
  
  Why must there be a physical border? What is the border of a pond? Water ends, dirt begins, but there is no physical separation. There is not, nor can there be, anything outside the "border" of space. At least nothing of our universe as there is no space to hold it.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  " You can't fit a 3 dimensional object into a 2 dimensional space - just try to fit a basketball into the surface of a piece of paper. Try to fit a 2 dimensional circle onto a line. Space must have at least 4 dimensions (counting time) to hold the "things" we are familiar with."
  
  Your are equating dimension with direction we can move!
  
  "Why must there be a physical border? What is the border of a pond? Water ends, dirt begins, but there is no physical separation."
  
  Isn't there? The dirt around gives the pool the space. I didn't mean it should always be space, but for celestial objects it should be space!
  "There is not, nor can there be, anything outside the "border" of space. At least nothing of our universe as there is no space to hold it."
  But space is the conceptualization of nothing(or what is it?)! There should be something around to say there is a border. Like the pond, if there is no dirt that hold the water, the water will continue too infinity and there will be no pond. When the size of the pond is very big we call it lake and ocean, but still has a border that separate the water from other water!
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the first 3 dimensions are something we can move in. #4 is time, where we can only move one direction. There may be more, but we are not equipped to either detect or visualize them.
  
  No. The pond occupies space and is contained by space, not dirt. The dirt simply occupies the next section of space after the pond ends. A fish in the water can see the end of his pond and the dirt beyond it even if it can't go there. The end of space is different.
  
  Space is indeed a conceptualization and can be nothing more as we are not equipped to "see" it. Consider a "pond" in zero gravity; it will be a sphere of water, and no matter how large it will end somewhere due to gravity. Without any physical border; it will simply stop occupying more space. Nevertheless the same fish, now in the sphere of water, can see that there is more - there are physical objects (stars maybe) outside the sphere but still in the same space that the sphere occupies. Different location, but the same space. (Don't get confused with a different definition of space - this space is what holds the universe, not a location).
  
  You are asking for the physical properties of "ether", but that concept is no longer in vogue. There is no "ether" - there is only space, the ability to hold the objects of our universe.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Space certainly does have dimension. You can't fit a 3 dimensional object into a 2 dimensional space - just try to fit a basketball into the surface of a piece of paper. Try to fit a 2 dimensional circle onto a line. Space must have at least 4 dimensions (counting time) to hold the "things" we are familiar with."
  
  Space is an expanse. There is nothing called 2D or 3D space. We can move any where in space. When you are trying to fit something on to a paper, you are trying to fit that to a plane, not space. Can you visualize 4D? If not, why you think such a monster exist in nature? Time? With time the only event happen is an object change location. It never change any structure. Have you ever seen a circle drawn on a paper become a sphere by attaining or adding the "time dimension"?
  
  "Why must there be a physical border? What is the border of a pond? Water ends, dirt begins, but there is no physical separation. There is not, nor can there be, anything outside the "border" of space. At least nothing of our universe as there is no space to hold it."
  
  Have you seen any pond in the middle of an ocean? Why not? Because there should be something there to separate the water from other water to say that that particular water is a pool or pond. Or imagine a solid sphere with 5cm diameter. What made you say it is 5cm? What gave shape to that? Or do you say it is a sphere inside a sphere, inside a sphere..... If space is nothing, how can there be nothing "outside" nothing? Space is our conceptualization of nothing. It is the nothing that surrounds the something that gave shape to the something and make the something a discrete object.
  reply report
  79
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I said, if you want to know how scientists define space, you should use a source that relates to this, not a wiki. I, personally, don't work in a science that worries about how to define space.
  
  So, about you stop ranting and do a little actual work--go get a definition out of a post-graduate level physics text book so why have some pale trembling hope of having a productive discussion here..
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Argument from authority is no answer. If I want that, nobody is a match for my local priest!
  reply report
59
Beelzedadposted 13 years ago
Sometimes we can even define space as the distance between one ear and the other.
reply report
1. 0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The distance separating objects!!!
  Relativistic humor???
  reply report
64
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
Technically speaking, it can be defined as the distance between a politician's ears....

reply report
0
Muldanianmanposted 13 years ago
I am beginning to think it is the thing between my ears.
reply report
64
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
I think my views on the subject can be explained mathematically...

$http://www.hyper-ad.com/tutoring/math/calculus/images/const_riemann_int_666.gif$

One can therefore deduce ipsofacto from this equation the obvious conclusion that space can be defined by the value of 'X', which as the following equation shows, is easy to find...

reply report
1. 0
  Muldanianmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I couldn't agree more.
  reply report
81
manlypoetrymanposted 13 years ago
Q: What is spaace?

The Easy Answer: The Final Frontier...
reply report
1. 0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is that black stuff? Where is the frontier?
  reply report
0
Lk kiruiposted 13 years ago
Mathciguy,
just because you saw me post in Gaede hubs is what makes you presume that I am talking of mathematicians in the way Gaede does and that has made you not understand my post! I talked of the non-euclidean geometry which is officialy done by mathematicians and not physicists and that is why I said mathematicians and not physicists! Then I didn't say perpendicular lines cannot be produced!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

What is space?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

What is space?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies