What is actual space made of?

[handmade]

If we could remove all the EMR from the observable Universe, what would the space that is left be made of?

[bangstrom]

Besides space, the remains would be time and gravity. Gravity is often described as curved spacetime so curved spacetime (aka ‘gravity’) is what would remain. It is hard to visualize how either space or time can curve so I prefer to think of gravity as shorter space and slower time since lengths appear shorter and clocks tick slower in a gravitational field. In other words, take away EMR and spacetime remains.

[someguy1]

Ok so what happens when you remove gravity? Isn't the latest big idea that "nothing" implies the laws of physics plus quantum foam? What happens when you remove those?

[handmade]

Besides space, the remains would be time and gravity. Gravity is often described as curved spacetime so curved spacetime (aka ‘gravity’) is what would remain. It is hard to visualize how either space or time can curve so I prefer to think of gravity as shorter space and slower time since lengths appear shorter and clocks tick slower in a gravitational field. In other words, take away EMR and spacetime remains.

How can gravity remain when space apparently has no mass?

[handmade]

Ok so what happens when you remove gravity? Isn't the latest big idea that "nothing" implies the laws of physics plus quantum foam? What happens when you remove those?

Nothing = without dimension

nothing = made of nothing

Maybe space is just nothing and we should accept that it is nothing?

[someguy1]

Space can't be nothing, it has many properties according to Einstein. If space is subject to the laws of physics, then it's not nothing. And the laws of physics aren't nothing.

Newtonian space is nothing. It's empty, devoid of matter and also of properties. But relativistic space is a thing with properties, if I'm understanding correctly. Per my understanding, space is the thing that's distorted by gravity. And dually, gravity is the distortion of space. Or spacetime, since you can't disentangle space from time.

So space definitely is not nothing, in the modern theory of gravity.

The question "what is space" is a darn good one in my book. I don't think anyone knows. Before the big bang there was no spacetime. So what was before the big bang? That's a question that by definition lies outside the realm of science. But that doesn't make is a bad question, just a difficult one.

[BurtJordaan]

In Newton's days, 'empty space' was filled with the aether. In Einstein's days, 'empty space' became de Sitter spacetime, being curved by the cosmological constant. Modern physics fills the de Sitter spacetime with a "quantum froth" or "foam" that someguy1 was talking about, but presently nobody knows how the two (de Sitter and quantum effects) are to be fitted together.

[bangstrom]

How can gravity remain when space apparently has no mass?

The question involved removing EM emissions from space. I assume that to mean that matter remains so we can still observe the effects of gravity.

Correction: Gravity would remain but we would be blind to the effects.

[handmade]

In Newton's days, 'empty space' was filled with the aether. In Einstein's days, 'empty space' became de Sitter spacetime, being curved by the cosmological constant. Modern physics fills the de Sitter spacetime with a "quantum froth" or "foam" that someguy1 was talking about, but presently nobody knows how the two (de Sitter and quantum effects) are to be fitted together.

Fills with ''quantum froth''? suggesting it was empty to be filled. Space-time curvature is not necessarily a curving of space itself, I do not think anywhere does Einstein suggest that it was space itself that was curving.
Absolute space by Newton is seemingly logical sense, to remove all matter and EMR from space must only leave space (a perfect vacuum).
I am pretty sure that space has no solidity, I am also pretty sure it can neither be displaced or destroyed.

There is a certainty in my mind that Einstein's thoughts were more of the unseen in space such has gravity and light which is invisible between masses . I personally think he was imaging these unseen ''things'' curved .

[handmade]

How can gravity remain when space apparently has no mass?

The question involved removing EM emissions from space. I assume that to mean that matter remains so we can still observe the effects of gravity.

Correction: Gravity would remain but we would be blind to the effects.

Why would gravity remain? There is no logic in suggesting anything would remain. Space has to have a ''viscosity'' of 0.

[handmade]

Space can't be nothing, it has many properties according to Einstein. If space is subject to the laws of physics, then it's not nothing. And the laws of physics aren't nothing.

How is space subject to the laws of physics without physicality?

[someguy1]

Space can't be nothing, it has many properties according to Einstein. If space is subject to the laws of physics, then it's not nothing. And the laws of physics aren't nothing.

How is space subject to the laws of physics without physicality?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Whatever space is, it's subject to the laws of physics. To me, "nothing" would not be subject to anything at all. It could not be affected by physical laws. It's nothing. A thing that is affected by physical law can not be nothing.

[BurtJordaan]

Fills with ''quantum froth''? suggesting it was empty to be filled. Space-time curvature is not necessarily a curving of space itself, I do not think anywhere does Einstein suggest that it was space itself that was curving.
Absolute space by Newton is seemingly logical sense, to remove all matter and EMR from space must only leave space (a perfect vacuum).

In quantum gravity parlance, 'empty space' was always filled with this "froth", not from some time onward.
You are right that empty de Sitter space does not have to be spatially curved, but it could be. De Sitter spacetime is empty and always curved, having an inherent energy density component of the cosmological constant. Minkowski spacetime is a flat, special case of de Sitter spacetime, with vanishingly small cosmological constant energy component in a small region of space.

[handmade]

Space can't be nothing, it has many properties according to Einstein. If space is subject to the laws of physics, then it's not nothing. And the laws of physics aren't nothing.

How is space subject to the laws of physics without physicality?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Whatever space is, it's subject to the laws of physics. To me, "nothing" would not be subject to anything at all. It could not be affected by physical laws. It's nothing. A thing that is affected by physical law can not be nothing.

The thing is, there is no evidence that points to or suggests space is anything but space and any other than that information would be subjective. I do not know why you are saying space is affected by physical laws as if fact when there is no evidence for that or any sort of evidence that space is made of anything.

Space can not be displaced (moved), space is relatively stationary to observation , always at rest compared to a moving body or moving ''energy''.

Space also passes through things and things pass through space while things are being displaced. (provable in experiment by using a balloon inflating inside a box).

[handmade]

Fills with ''quantum froth''? suggesting it was empty to be filled. Space-time curvature is not necessarily a curving of space itself, I do not think anywhere does Einstein suggest that it was space itself that was curving.
Absolute space by Newton is seemingly logical sense, to remove all matter and EMR from space must only leave space (a perfect vacuum).

In quantum gravity parlance, 'empty space' was always filled with this "froth", not from some time onward.
You are right that empty de Sitter space does not have to be spatially curved, but it could be. De Sitter spacetime is empty and always curved, having an inherent energy density component of the cosmological constant. Minkowski spacetime is a flat, special case of de Sitter spacetime, with vanishingly small cosmological constant energy component in a small region of space.

When people use the word filled, they are suggesting empty to begin with. I would prefer to say the Quantum foam permeates directly proportionate to the amount of space .

[vivian maxine]

handmaid, right or wrong - who am I to say? - I like your down-to-earth common sensical approach.

[BurtJordaan]

When people use the word filled, they are suggesting empty to begin with. I would prefer to say the Quantum foam permeates directly proportionate to the amount of space .

I think 'permeate' is actually a worse word, by its common as well as scientific meaning. If the whole idea of quantum foam is correct, it must have filled all of space from the beginning, whatever 'beginning' might mean...

[handmade]

handmaid, right or wrong - who am I to say? - I like your down-to-earth common sensical approach.

Thank you, who are you to say? you are an observer relative to me and I an observer relative to you , what two observers agree on is relative. If you agree with me, it is relative.

That is why earlier I mentioned before writing a theory I was looking for relative agreement in discussion.

[handmade]

When people use the word filled, they are suggesting empty to begin with. I would prefer to say the Quantum foam permeates directly proportionate to the amount of space .

I think 'permeate' is actually a worse word, by its common as well as scientific meaning. If the whole idea of quantum foam is correct, it must have filled all of space from the beginning, whatever 'beginning' might mean...

If you fill a box with water , doe's the water not spread out thoroughly in the box?

[Eodnhoj7]

If we could remove all the EMR from the observable Universe, what would the space that is left be made of?

The question could be reversed: What would exist without space? Are all observable phenomenon merely space folding into itself through movement as movement? Is space movement with any finite change being an approximation of a universal infinite space?

[doogles]

Handmade, there was a thread called 'The theory of everything' a year or so back in which I asked exactly the same question you've posed. It seemed silly to me that no research had actually been conducted on this 'nothingness' that pervaded everything. I did not get any satisfactory answers from form members, but I did nose around and discovered this video.

If the video information is correct, then the so-called 'empty space' has some interesting properties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY .

[Event Horizon]

The existence of non-existence is a bit paradoxical, just something I ponder on. But spacetime is not nothingness. It's spacetime. Whatever that is. Just thinkin'. Trying to. That's some deep stuff.

[Eodnhoj7]

Handmade, there was a thread called 'The theory of everything' a year or so back in which I asked exactly the same question you've posed. It seemed silly to me that no research had actually been conducted on this 'nothingness' that pervaded everything. I did not get any satisfactory answers from form members, but I did nose around and discovered this video.

If the video information is correct, then the so-called 'empty space' has some interesting properties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY .

The question might be one for metaphysics considering when dealing with strict space you also must deal with "thoughts" themselves embodying these very same qualities.

[Eodnhoj7]

The existence of non-existence is a bit paradoxical, just something I ponder on. But spacetime is not nothingness. It's spacetime. Whatever that is. Just thinkin'. Trying to. That's some deep stuff.

Neutrality as both extremes and neither.

[DragonFly]

Space (as well as time) is not a container that 'something' is put into, nor is spacetime a container. The 'something' is spacetime, as per Einstein's GR equation of the gravitational field and matter dynamically affecting each other.

Quantum gravity theory is the next step—to go beyond spacetime, for what we call 'space' and 'time' are emergent and so they wouldn't appear in quantum gravity, although quantum gravity theories must show how they can emerge. 'Things', too, would go away, too, replaced by relational events/processes (a tree is a long event; as is a mountain or a stone).

[doogles]

Is there anybody in our forum who can explain 'quantum field fluctuations', 'quantum gravity theories', or 'space-time' in 'real terms' so that we can all understand the 'reality' of the 'nothingness' that is the main volume component of every atom that makes up the total of everything we perceive with our senses and mechanical detectors in our universe?

[Eodnhoj7]

Space (as well as time) is not a container that 'something' is put into, nor is spacetime a container. The 'something' is spacetime, as per Einstein's GR equation of the gravitational field and matter dynamically affecting each other.

Quantum gravity theory is the next step—to go beyond spacetime, for what we call 'space' and 'time' are emergent and so they wouldn't appear in quantum gravity, although quantum gravity theories must show how they can emerge. 'Things', too, would go away, too, replaced by relational events/processes (a tree is a long event; as is a mountain or a stone).

If "space-time" is not a container, or maybe more accurately put a "limit" or "boundary", then why can it only be represented in linear terms? How is the line not the base premise for a limit which forms a container?